Variation in length of stay after minimally invasive lung resection: a reflection of perioperative care routines?

OBJECTIVES: Good perioperative care is aimed at rapid recovery, without complications or readmissions. Length of stay (LOS) is influenced not only by perioperative care routines but also by patient factors, tumour factors, treatment characteristics and complications. The present study examines variation in LOS between hospitals after minimally invasive lung resections for both complicated and uncomplicated patients to assess whether LOS is a hospital characteristic influenced by local perioperative routines or other factors.METHODS: Dutch Lung Cancer Audit (surgery) data were used. Median LOS was calculated on hospital level, stratified by the severity of complications. Lowest quartile (short) LOS per hospital, corrected for case-mix factors by multivariable logistic regression, was presented in funnel plots. We correlated short LOS in complicated versus uncomplicated patients to assess whether short LOS clustered in the same hospitals regardless of complications.RESULTS: Data from 6055 patients in 42 hospitals were included. Median LOS in uncomplicated patients varied from 3 to 8 days between hospitals and increased most markedly for patients with major complications. Considerable between-hospital variation persisted after case-mix correction, but more in uncomplicated than complicated patients. Short LOS in uncomplicated and complicated patients were significantly correlated (r = 0.53, P < 0.001). CCONCLUSIONS: LOS after minimally invasive anatomical lung resections varied between hospitals particularly in uncomplicated patients. The significant correlation between short LOS in uncomplicated and complicated patients suggests that LOS is a hospital characteristic potentially influenced by local processes. Standardizing and optimizing perioperative care could help limit practice variation with improved LOS and complication rates.Analysis and support of clinical decision makin

Ruling out Pulmonary Embolism in Patients with (Suspected) COVID-19-A Prospective Cohort Study

Background  Diagnostic strategies for suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) have not been prospectively evaluated in COVID-19 patients. Methods  Prospective, multicenter, outcome study in 707 patients with both (suspected) COVID-19 and suspected PE in 14 hospitals. Patients on chronic anticoagulant therapy were excluded. Informed consent was obtained by opt-out approach. Patients were managed by validated diagnostic strategies for suspected PE. We evaluated the safety (3-month failure rate) and efficiency (number of computed tomography pulmonary angiographies [CTPAs] avoided) of the applied strategies. Results  Overall PE prevalence was 28%. YEARS was applied in 36%, Wells rule in 4.2%, and "CTPA only" in 52%; 7.4% was not tested because of hemodynamic or respiratory instability. Within YEARS, PE was considered excluded without CTPA in 29%, of which one patient developed nonfatal PE during follow-up (failure rate 1.4%, 95% CI 0.04-7.8). One-hundred seventeen patients (46%) managed according to YEARS had a negative CTPA, of whom 10 were diagnosed with nonfatal venous thromboembolism (VTE) during follow-up (failure rate 8.8%, 95% CI 4.3-16). In patients managed by CTPA only, 66% had an initial negative CTPA, of whom eight patients were diagnosed with a nonfatal VTE during follow-up (failure rate 3.6%, 95% CI 1.6-7.0). Conclusion  Our results underline the applicability of YEARS in (suspected) COVID-19 patients with suspected PE. CTPA could be avoided in 29% of patients managed by YEARS, with a low failure rate. The failure rate after a negative CTPA, used as a sole test or within YEARS, was non-negligible and reflects the high thrombotic risk in these patients, warranting ongoing vigilance