Case Fatality Odds Research Articles

Decreased Emergency Cholecystectomy and Case Fatality Rate, Not Explained by Expansion of Medicaid

IntroductionPopulation data on longitudinal trends for cholecystectomies and their outcomes are scarce. We evaluated the incidence and case fatality rate of emergency and ambulatory cholecystectomies in New Jersey (NJ) and whether the Medicaid expansion changed trends. Materials and methodsA retrospective population cohort design was used to study the incidence of cholecystectomies and their case fatality rate from 2009 to 2018. Using linear and logistic regression we explored the trends of incidence and the odds of case fatality after versus before the January 1, 2014 Medicaid expansion. ResultsOverall, 93,423 emergency cholecystectomies were performed, with 644 fatalities; 87,239 ambulatory cholecystectomies were performed, with fewer than 10 fatalities. The 2009 to 2018 annual incidence of emergency cholecystectomies dropped markedly from 114.8 to 77.5 per 100,000 NJ population (P < 0.0001); ambulatory cholecystectomies increased from 93.5 to 95.6 per 100,000 (P = 0.053). The incidence of emergency cholecystectomies dropped more after than before Medicaid expansion (P < 0.0001). The odds ratio for case fatality among those undergoing emergency cholecystectomies after versus before expansion was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.72-0.99). This decrease in case fatality, apparent only in those over age 65, was not explained by the addition of Medicaid. ConclusionsA marked decrease in the incidence of emergency cholecystectomies occurred after Medicaid expansion, which was not accounted for by a minimal increase in the incidence of ambulatory cholecystectomies. Case fatality from emergency cholecystectomy decreased over time due to factors other than Medicaid. Further work is needed to reconcile these findings with the previously reported lack of decrease in overall gallstone disease mortality in NJ.

Association of Practitioner Interfacility Triage Performance With Outcomes for Severely Injured Patients With Fee-for-Service Medicare Insurance

Despite evidence that treatment of severely injured patients at trauma centers is associated with reduced mortality, nearly half of all such patients are treated at nontrauma centers (undertriaged). Little is known about whether interfacility undertriage occurs because of practitioner decision-making or institutional and regional factors. To assess the associations between variation in triage practitioners at nontrauma centers and between practitioner-level variation and patient outcomes after injury. This retrospective cohort study used Medicare claims data from severely injured patients presenting to nontrauma centers and the practitioners who evaluated them in the emergency department from January 1, 2010, to October 15, 2015. Data analysis was performed from January 15, 2018, to March 21, 2019. Proportion of variation in undertriage associated with practitioners, practitioner rates of undertriage, practitioner characteristics associated with undertriage, and 30-day case-fatality rate. A total of 124 008 severely injured patients (mean [SD] age, 81 [8.4] years; 67 253 [54.2%] female) and the 25 376 practitioners (5564 [21.9%] female) who evaluated the patients in the emergency department of nontrauma centers were included in the study. Undertriage occurred among 85 403 patients (68.9%), with 40.6% of total variation associated with practitioners, 37.8% with hospitals, and 6.7% with regions. Compared with physicians with National Provider Identification (NPI) enumeration before 2007, those with an NPI enumerated between 2007 and 2010 had an undertriage risk ratio (RR) of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99), and those with an NPI enumerated after 2010 had an undertriage RR of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94-0.99). Hospitals with neurosurgeons had an undertriage RR of 1.51 (95% CI, 1.45-1.57) compared with those that did not; hospitals with spine surgeons had an undertriage RR of 1.10 (95% CI, 1.06-1.13); hospitals with general surgeons had an undertriage RR of 1.13 (95% CI, 1.09-1.17). Compared with practitioners who undertriaged 25% or less of patients, a statistically significant increase was found in the odds of death for patients treated by practitioners with a triage rate of less than 25% to 50% (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.20) and less than 50% to 75% undertriage (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.09-1.26) but not undertriage at greater than 75% (OR, 1.03, 95% CI, 1.00-1.18). In sensitivity analyses to adjust for unmeasured confounding, the association between triage practices and the case fatality rate became monotonic; compared with patients treated by practitioners with an undertriage rate of 25% or less, the odds of case fatality were 1.13 (95% CI, 1.05-1.21; P = .001) among patients treated by practitioners with undertriage rates less than 25% to 50%, 1.22 (95% CI, 1.13-1.32; P < .001) for patients treated by practitioners with undertriage rates less than 50% to 75%, and 1.20 (95% CI, 1.10-1.30; P < .001) for patients treated by practitioners with undertriage rates greater than 75%. The findings suggest that individual practitioner practices are an important source of variation in triage and represent a potential locus of intervention to reduce preventable deaths after injury.

007 Associations between marital status and survival after a first acute myocardial infarction in Scotland, 1988–2004

BackgroundThere is evidence that marriage has a beneficial effect on health; unmarried experience higher mortality and incidence of mental and physical disorders. In particular, being unmarried is associated with elevated...