A Comparison of Whipple Outcomes Between a Safety-Net Hospital and American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) in African Americans

Résumé fourni par la source

Purpose The aim of this study was to compare 30-day adverse events following pancreaticoduodenectomy between our safety-net hospital and the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) in a matched cohort of Black/African American (AA) patients. Methods We retrospectively reviewed consecutive Black/AA patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomies from 2015 to 2020 at our safety-net institution. The corresponding patients from the ACS-NSQIP (2015-2019) were queried. Propensity-score matching was performed between safety-net and ACS-NSQIP Black/AA cohorts to equate baseline characteristics, and 30-day outcomes were compared between propensity-matched cohorts. Results Thirty-two Black/AAs (16 females; 62.1±10.7 years) were identified from 128 patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomies at our safety-net institution and were propensity-score matched to 32 ACS-NSQIP patients. After matching, baseline characteristics did not significantly differ between cohorts. Postoperatively, surgical site infections, wound disruptions, respiratory events, cardiovascular events, urinary tract infections, acute renal failure, sepsis, delayed gastric emptying, and pancreatic fistulas were not significantly different between our safety-net and ACS-NSQIP cohorts. Our length of stay (LOS) was longer (17.0(12.3-27.0) versus 10.0(7.0-16.0) days); however, patients with a LOS>30 days were comparable. Furthermore, 30-day readmissions were similar, and 30-day reoperations were lower (p=0.03) at our safety-net institution. Conclusions Black/AA patients who underwent pancreatectomies at a safety-net hospital had similar outcomes and fewer reoperations compared to a corresponding national cohort. Although we illustrate comparable outcomes, clinical pathways to mitigate and alleviate health disparities in marginalized populations at a safety-net hospital should be emphasized to continue improving outcomes.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.