4.4 Article

Inability to manage non-severe complications on an outpatient basis increases non-white patient readmission rates after pancreaticoduodenectomy: A large metropolitan tertiary care center experience

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 222, 期 5, 页码 964-968

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2021.04.011

关键词

Pancreaticoduodenectomy; Readmission; Racial disparities; MAGS

类别

资金

  1. Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) [UL1 TR002345]
  2. Siteman Comprehensive Cancer Center
  3. NCI Cancer Center Support Grant [P30 CA091842]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that non-white patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy are more likely to experience readmission, particularly for non-severe complications. Therefore, follow-up protocols should be tailored to address race disparities in readmission rates.
Background: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has a high rate of readmission, and racial disparities in care could be an important contributor. Methods: Patients undergoing PD were prospectively followed, and their complications graded using the Modified Accordion Grading System (MAGS). Patient factors and perioperative outcomes for patients with and without postoperative readmission were compared in univariate and multivariate analysis by severity. Results: 837 patients underwent PD, the overall 90-day readmission rate was 27.5%. Non-white race was independently associated with readmission (OR 1.83, p = 0.007). 51.3% of readmissions were for non-severe complications (MAGS <3). Non-white race was independently associated with MAGS non-severe readmission (OR 2.13, p = 0.006), but not MAGS severe readmission. Conclusions: Non-white patients are more likely to be readmitted, particularly for non-severe complications. Follow up protocols should be tailored to address race disparities in the rates of readmission as readmission for less severe complications could potentially be avoidable. (C) 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据