ERATS decreased length of stay, postoperative complications, and readmission.

Background: The impact of cardiovascular and neurologic complications on infective endocarditis (IE) are well studied, yet the prevalence and significance of pulmonary complications in IE is not defined. To better characterize the multifaceted nature of IE management, we aimed to describe the occurrence and significance of pulmonary complications in IE, including among persons with IE related to drug use. Methods: Hospitalizations of adult (≥18 years old) patients diagnosed with IE were identified in the 2016 National Inpatient Sample using ICD-10 codes. Multivariable logistic and linear regression were used to compare IE patient outcomes between those with and without pulmonary complications and to identify predictors of pulmonary complications. Interaction terms were used to assess the impact of drug-use IE (DU-IE) and pulmonary complications on inpatient outcomes. Results: In 2016, there were an estimated 88,995 hospitalizations of patients diagnosed with IE. Of these hospitalizations,15,490 (17%) were drug-use related. Drug-use IE (DU-IE) had the highest odds of pulmonary complications (OR 2.97, 95% CI 2.50, 3.45). At least one pulmonary complication was identified in 6,580 (7%) of IE patients. DU-IE hospitalizations were more likely to have a diagnosis of pyothorax (3% vs. 1%, p<0.001), lung abscess (3% vs. <1%, p<0.001), and septic pulmonary embolism (27% vs. 2%, p<0.001). Pulmonary complications were associated with longer average lengths of stay (CIE 7.22 days 95% CI 6.11, 8.32), higher hospital charges (CIE 78.51 thousand dollars 95% CI 57.44, 99.57), more frequent post-discharge transfers (acute care: OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09, 1.71; long-term care: OR 2.19, 95% CI 1.83, 2.61), and increased odds of inpatient mortality (OR 1.81 95% CI 1.39, 2.35). Conclusion and relevance: IE with pulmonary complications is associated with worse outcomes. Patients with DU-IE have a particularly high prevalence of pulmonary complications that may require timely thoracic surgical intervention, likely owing to right-sided valve involvement. More research is needed to determine optimal management strategies for complications to improve patient outcomes.

Flail chest and severely displaced rib fractures due to blunt trauma can be associated with intrathoracic injuries. At our institution, two thoracic surgeons perform all surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF): one performs routine uniportal thoracoscopy (R-VATS) at the time of SSRF and the other for only select cases (S-VATS). In this pilot study, we hypothesized that R-VATS at the time of SSRF identifies and addresses intrathoracic injuries not seen on imaging and may impact patient outcomes. A retrospective review of all patients who underwent SSRF from 2013–2019 at our institution was performed for severely displaced rib fractures or flail chest. Data collected included demographics, imaging results, treatment strategy, and operative findings. Ninety-nine patients underwent SSRF. Uniportal thoracoscopy was performed on 69% of these patients. When thoracoscopy was performed, 31 additional injuries were identified. R-VATS identified 23 additional intrathoracic findings at time of thoracoscopy not seen on CT scan compared to 8 findings in the S-VATS group (P=0.367). At 3 months follow-up, one empyema and one diaphragmatic hernia required reoperation—neither of which underwent thoracoscopy at time of SSRF. There were no differences in LOS, operative times, and overall mortality between the SSRF/thoracoscopy and SSRF only groups. R-VATS at the time of SSRF did not identify a statistically significant greater number of occult intrathoracic injuries compared to S-VATS. R-VATS was not associated with increased operative time, LOS, and mortality. Further study is needed to determine if there is benefit to R-VATS in patients meeting requirements for rib fracture repair.

Background: The current National Comprehensive Cancer Network advises neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery for locally advanced cases of esophageal cancer. The role of immunotherapy in this context is under heavy investigation. Methods: Patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) from 2004 to 2019. Three groups were generated as follows: (a) no immunotherapy, (b) neoadjuvant immunotherapy, and (c) adjuvant immunotherapy. Overall survival was evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox proportional hazard analysis, adjusting for previously described risk factors for mortality. Results: Of the total 14,244 patients diagnosed with esophageal adenocarcinoma who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation, 14,065 patients did not receive immunotherapy, 110 received neoadjuvant immunotherapy, and 69 received adjuvant immunotherapy. When adjusting for established risk factors, adjuvant immunotherapy was associated with significantly improved survival compared to no immunotherapy and neoadjuvant immunotherapy during a median follow-up period of 35.2 months. No difference was noted among patients who received no immunotherapy vs. neoadjuvant immunotherapy in the same model. Conclusions: In this retrospective analysis of the NCDB, receiving adjuvant immunotherapy offered a significant survival advantage compared to no immunotherapy and neoadjuvant immunotherapy in the treatment of esophageal adenocarcinoma. The addition of neoadjuvant immunotherapy to patients treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation did not improve survival in this cohort. Further studies are warranted to investigate the long-term outcomes of immunotherapy in esophageal cancer.