Abdominal compartment syndrome has been shown to be a highly morbid condition among patients admitted to the intensive care unit. The present study sought to characterize trends as well as clinical ...and financial outcomes of patients with abdominal compartment syndrome.
The 2010 to 2020 National Inpatient Sample was used to identify adults (≥18 years) admitted to the intensive care unit. Standard mean differences were obtained to demonstrate effect size with >0.1 denoting significance. Hospitals were divided into tertiles based on annual institutional intensive care unit admissions. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate the association of abdominal compartment syndrome on outcomes. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, while complications, costs, and length of stay were secondarily considered.
Of 11,804,585 patients, 19,644 (0.17%) developed abdominal compartment syndrome. Over the study period, the incidence of abdominal compartment syndrome (2010–0.19%, 2020–0.20%, P < .001) remained similar. Those with abdominal compartment syndrome were more commonly admitted for gastrointestinal (22.8% vs 8.4%) and cardiovascular (22.6% vs 14.9%) etiologies and were more frequently managed at urban teaching hospitals (77.7% vs 65.1%) as well as high-volume intensive care units (85.2% vs 79.1%) (all standard mean differences >0.1). After adjustment, abdominal compartment syndrome was associated with higher odds of mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 3.84, 95% confidence interval: 3.57–4.13, reference: non-abdominal compartment syndrome). Incremental length of stay (β: +5.0 days, 95% confidence interval: 4.2–5.8) and costs (β: $49.3K, 95% confidence interval: 45.3–53.4) were significantly higher in abdominal compartment syndrome compared to non-abdominal compartment syndrome.
Abdominal compartment syndrome, while an uncommon occurrence among intensive care unit patients, remains highly morbid with significant resource burden. Further work exploring factors to mitigate its clinical and financial burden is needed.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Robotic cholecystectomy is being increasingly used for patients with acute gallbladder disease who present to the emergency department, but clinical evidence is limited. We aimed to compare the ...outcomes of emergent laparoscopic and robotic cholecystectomies in a large real-world database.
Patients who received emergent laparoscopic or robotic cholecystectomies from 2020 to 2022 were identified from the Intuitive Custom Hospital Analytics database, based on deidentified extraction of electronic health record data from US hospitals. Conversion to open or subtotal cholecystectomy and complications were defined using ICD10 and/or CPT codes. Multivariate logistic regression with inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was performed to compare clinical outcomes of laparoscopic versus robotic approach after balancing covariates. Cost analysis was performed with activity-based costing and adjustment for inflation.
Of 26,786 laparoscopic and 3,151 robotic emergent cholecystectomy patients being included, 64% were female, 60% were ≥45 years, and 24% were obese. Approximately 5.5% patients presented with pancreatitis, and 4% each presenting with sepsis and biliary obstruction. After IPTW, distributions of all baseline covariates were balanced. Robotic cholecystectomy decreased odds of conversion to open (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% confidence interval, 0.49-0.93; p = 0.035), but increased odds of subtotal cholecystectomy (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.60; p = 0.037). Surgical site infection, readmission, length of stay, hospital acquired conditions, bile duct injury or leak, and hospital mortality were similar in both groups. There was no significant difference in hospital cost.
Robotic cholecystectomy has reduced odds of conversion to open and comparable complications, but increased odds of subtotal cholecystectomy compared with laparoscopic cholecystectomy for acute gallbladder diseases. Further work is required to assess the long-term implications of these differences.
Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.
