Society: SSAT

Background: The majority of HCC patients within Milan criteria, compete with cirrhosis patients with high MELD for liver transplantation based on an exceptional score which is the calculated MELD at registration, 28 after six months of waiting, 31 after 1 year and thereafter capped at 34 after one and a half years. In competitive UNOS regions, HCC patients may have to wait for more than a year before they receive a transplant. This prolonged waiting can lead to progression of their cancer and/or cirrhosis and loss of candidature for transplantation while may have been acceptable resection candidates at the beginning of their waiting period. In such regions, survival may be better with hepatectomy as it obviates the waiting.

Aim: To compare the survival of HCC patients with single tumor and low Child’s class after liver transplantation or hepatectomy.

Material and Methods: We used the UNOS and NCDB databases to make the comparison. Between 2004 to 2013, 13, 519 patients with HCC were registered for liver transplantation in the US. Of them 5, 338 were of Child’s class A; sufficient tumor details were available for 2,726 cases allowing us to select cases with single tumor of up to 5 cm size and within Milan criteria were included in the study. The NCDB database does not record preoperative staging information. Therefore, we selected patients with single tumor of up to 5 cm in size at the time of diagnosis and without major vascular invasion at pathologic staging after partial hepatectomy. 2, 507 patients were included. We assumed that these patients were Child’s class A or early B as the NCDB does not record CPT score . AKaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. We used intention to treat principles and included all patients registered for transplantation whether or not they were transplanted. Survival analysis was was initiated at the time of listing for transplant. Reasons for removal from waiting list were summarized.

Results: The mean age was 58.8 years (std. dev. 7.3) and 77% were male in the transplant (UNOS) arm. The mean age was 62.4 years (std. dev. 11) and 71.8% were male in the hepatectomy (NCDB) arm. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates show that for the first 700 days patients have similar chances of survival. However, as time goes by, patients in the UNOS group experience better survival rates. The Log-rank test for equality of survivor functions, suggests that UNOS patients have better survival rates compared with NCBD (Chi-sq(1) = 83.8, p < 0.001).

Conclusion: In cirrhotic patients with HCC, survival after partial hepatectomy was non-inferior to that after transplantation for the first two years for low Child’s class liver disease. Resection should be strongly considered in eligible patients and this strategy could improve organ allocation.

Introduction
Unplanned care (readmission and emergency room (ER) visits) is a Center for Medicare Services measure of quality of care. Patients who undergo major gastrointestinal (GI) surgery are at high risk for postoperative complications which lead to unplanned care. We implemented a pilot program of postoperative outpatient monitoring using an FDA-approved wearable biometric monitoring device (BMD) to identify patients who suffered setbacks to mitigate severity of significant complications and to facilitate intervention for minor setbacks so as to prevent unplanned care.

Methods
Adult patients who underwent high-risk GI operations from the colorectal and hepatopancreatobiliary services were prospectively enrolled in a quality improvement remote monitoring project from discharge until 30 days after surgery. The BMD relayed biometric data (temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, and activity) to a cloud-based monitoring dashboard. Patients with abnormal data (alerts) were contacted and, if necessary, care was escalated to their clinical team. In-hospital death and a home-monitoring period of less than 7 days were exclusion criteria. The primary outcome was rate of avoidance of unplanned care. Secondary outcomes were 30-day ER visit rates, readmission rates, and their associated monitoring device-detection rate.

Results
A total of 129 patients were enrolled but 25 (19.4%) patients were excluded from analysis due to death (n=2) and monitoring <7 days (n=23). Of the 104 patients included in analysis, the average age was 60±13.4 year and 40 (38.5%) patients were female. We contacted 78 (75.0%) patients at least once in response to 192 alerts. In 17 (8.9%) of 192 cases, the setback was managed in the outpatient setting successfully avoiding unplanned care. In 145 (75.5%) cases, escalation was not required and in 37 (19.3%) cases, the patients could not be reached. There were a total of 22 ER visits by 18 (17.3%) patients. Nineteen patients (18.3%) had a total of 24 readmissions of which 5 (20.8%) were direct and not via the ER. BMD alerts resulted in 8 patient (7.7%) escalations that translated to ER visits and/or readmission. In 7 instances (6.7%) gaps in biometric data interfered with our ability to detect setbacks that resulted in unplanned care.

Conclusion
Patients who undergo major gastrointestinal operations can be safely monitored remotely. The technological and logistic complexity of monitoring outpatients are significant and require further optimization. Biometric findings that merit clinical alerts in the postoperative setting require refinement. However, this pilot data suggests remote monitoring has the potential to both reduce unplanned care and assist in detection of clinical deterioration.

Cindy Kin

Appearances