Racial variation in baseline characteristics and wait times among patients undergoing bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND: Although bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for obesity and weight-related comorbid diseases, utilization rates are disproportionately low among non-white patients. We sought to understand if variation in baseline characteristics or access to care exists between white and non-white patients. METHODS: Using a statewide bariatric-specific data registry, we evaluated all patients who underwent bariatric surgery between 2006 and 2020 and completed a preoperative baseline questionnaire, which included a question about self-identification of race. Patient characteristics, co-morbidities, and time from initial preoperative clinic evaluation to date of surgery were compared among racial groups. RESULTS: A total of 73,141 patients met inclusion criteria with 18,741 (25.5%) self-identified as non-white. These included Black/African American (n = 11,904), Hispanic (n = 3448), Asian (n = 121), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (n = 41), Middle Eastern (n = 164), Multiple (n = 2047) and other (n = 608). Non-white males were the least represented group, accounting for only 4% of all bariatric cases performed. Non-white patients were more likely to be younger (43.0 years vs. 46.6 years, p \u3c 0.0001), disabled (16% vs. 11.4%, p \u3c 0.0001) and have Medicaid (8.4% vs. 3.8%, p \u3c 0.0001) when compared to white patients, despite having higher rates of college education (78.0% vs. 76.6, p \u3c 0.0001). In addition, median time from initial evaluation to surgery was also longer among non-white patients (157 days vs. 127 days, p \u3c 0.0001), despite having higher rates of patients with a body mass index above 50 kg/m(2) (39.0% vs. 33.2%, p \u3c 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Non-white patients undergoing bariatric surgery represent an extremely diverse group of patients with more socioeconomic disadvantages and longer wait times when compared to white patients despite presenting with higher rates of severe obesity. Current guidelines and referral patterns for bariatric surgery may not be equitable and need further examination when considering the management of obesity within diverse populations to reduce disparities in care-of which non-white males are particularly at risk

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Volume standards and outcomes measurement—Complementary strategies to improve surgical quality

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/170860/1/cncr33765_am.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/170860/2/cncr33765.pd

Understanding Racial Differences in Lung Cancer Surgery Through a Statewide Quality Collaborative

BACKGROUND: Persistent racial disparities in lung cancer incidence, treatment, and survival are well documented. Given the importance of surgical resection for lung cancer treatment, racial disparities in surgical quality were investigated using a statewide quality collaborative. METHODS: This retrospective study used data from the Michigan Society of Cardiothoracic Surgeons General Thoracic database, which includes data gathered for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database at 17 institutions in Michigan. Adult patients undergoing resection for lung cancer between 2015 and 2021 were included. Propensity score-weighting methodology was used to assess differences in surgical quality, including extent of resection, adequate lymph node evaluation, 30-day mortality, and 30-day readmission rate between white and black patients. RESULTS: The cohort included 5073 patients comprising 357 (7%) black and 4716 (93%) white patients. The black patients had significantly higher unadjusted rates of wedge resection than the white patients, but after propensity score-weighting for clinical factors, wedge resection did not differ from lobectomy (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-1.49; P = 0.67). The black patients had fewer lymph nodes collected (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73-0.81; P \u3c 0.0001) and lymph node stations sampled (IRR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.84-0.94; P \u3c 0.0001). The black patients did not differ from the white patients in terms of mortality (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.19-2.34; P = 0.55) or readmission (OR, 0.79; 95 % CI, 0.49-1.27; P = 0.32). The black patients had longer hospital stays (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02-1.14; P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: In a statewide quality collaborative that included high-volume centers, black patients received a less extensive lymph node evaluation, with fewer non-anatomic wedge resections performed, and a more limited lymph node evaluation with lobectomy

US Postgraduate Trainee Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Representation and Faculty Compensation By Specialty

This study compares postgraduate trainee racial, ethnic, and gender representation and faculty compensation for 21 clinical specialties using 2015-2022 data

Racial variation in baseline characteristics and wait times among patients undergoing bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND: Although bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for obesity and weight-related comorbid diseases, utilization rates are disproportionately low among non-white patients. We sought to understand if variation in baseline characteristics or access to care exists between white and non-white patients. METHODS: Using a statewide bariatric-specific data registry, we evaluated all patients who underwent bariatric surgery between 2006 and 2020 and completed a preoperative baseline questionnaire, which included a question about self-identification of race. Patient characteristics, co-morbidities, and time from initial preoperative clinic evaluation to date of surgery were compared among racial groups. RESULTS: A total of 73,141 patients met inclusion criteria with 18,741 (25.5%) self-identified as non-white. These included Black/African American (n = 11,904), Hispanic (n = 3448), Asian (n = 121), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (n = 41), Middle Eastern (n = 164), Multiple (n = 2047) and other (n = 608). Non-white males were the least represented group, accounting for only 4% of all bariatric cases performed. Non-white patients were more likely to be younger (43.0 years vs. 46.6 years, p \u3c 0.0001), disabled (16% vs. 11.4%, p \u3c 0.0001) and have Medicaid (8.4% vs. 3.8%, p \u3c 0.0001) when compared to white patients, despite having higher rates of college education (78.0% vs. 76.6, p \u3c 0.0001). In addition, median time from initial evaluation to surgery was also longer among non-white patients (157 days vs. 127 days, p \u3c 0.0001), despite having higher rates of patients with a body mass index above 50 kg/m(2) (39.0% vs. 33.2%, p \u3c 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Non-white patients undergoing bariatric surgery represent an extremely diverse group of patients with more socioeconomic disadvantages and longer wait times when compared to white patients despite presenting with higher rates of severe obesity. Current guidelines and referral patterns for bariatric surgery may not be equitable and need further examination when considering the management of obesity within diverse populations to reduce disparities in care-of which non-white males are particularly at risk

Factors affecting timing of surgery following neoadjuvant chemoradiation for esophageal cancer

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation with esophagectomy is standard management for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Studies have shown that surgical timing following chemoradiation is important for minimizing postoperative complications, however in practice timing is often variable and delayed. Although postoperative impact of surgical timing has been studied, less is known about factors associated with delays. Materials and methods: A retrospective review was performed for 96 patients with esophageal cancer who underwent chemoradiation then esophagectomy between 2018 and 2020 at a single institution. Univariable and stepwise multivariable analyses were used to assess association between social (demographics, insurance) and clinical variables (pre-operative weight, comorbidities, prior cardiothoracic surgery, smoking history, disease staging) with time to surgery (≤8 weeks “on-time” vs. >8 weeks “delayed”). Results: Fifty-one patients underwent esophagectomy within 8 weeks of chemoradiation; 45 had a delayed operation. Univariate analysis showed the following characteristics were significantly different between on-time and delayed groups: weight loss within 3 months of surgery (3.9 ± 5.1 kg vs. 1.5 ± 3.6 kg; P = 0.009), prior cardiovascular disease (29% vs. 49%; P = 0.05), prior cardiothoracic surgery (4% vs. 22%; P = 0.01), history of ever smoked (69% vs. 87%; P = 0.04), absent nodal metastasis on pathology (57% vs. 82%; P = 0.008). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that prior cardiothoracic surgery (OR 8.924, 95%CI 1.67–47.60; P = 0.01) and absent nodal metastasis (OR 4.186, 95%CI 1.50–11.72; P = 0.006) were associated with delayed surgery. Conclusions: Delayed esophagectomy following chemoradiotherapy is associated with prior cardiothoracic surgery and absent nodal metastasis. Further investigations should focus on understanding how these factors contribute to delays to guide treatment planning and mitigate sources of outcome disparities

Effect of Antiplatelet Therapy on Survival and Organ Support–Free Days in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

International audienc