Objective Using a national database, we asked whether video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy is beneficial in high-risk pulmonary patients. Background Single-institution series demonstrated benefit of VATS lobectomy over lobectomy via thoracotomy in poor pulmonary function patients [FEV1 (forced expiratory volume in 1 second) or DLCO (diffusion capacity of the lung to carbon monoxide) <60% predicted]. Methods The STS General Thoracic Database was queried for patients having undergone lobectomy by either thoracotomy or VATS between 2000 and 2010. Postoperative pulmonary complications included those defined by the STS database. Results In the STS database, 12,970 patients underwent lobectomy (thoracotomy, n = 8439; VATS, n = 4531) and met inclusion criteria. The overall rate of pulmonary complications was 21.7% (1832/8439) and 17.8% (806/4531) in patients undergoing lobectomy with thoracotomy and VATS, respectively (P < 0.0001). In a multivariable model of pulmonary complications, thoracotomy approach (OR = 1.25, P < 0.001), decreasing FEV1% predicted (OR = 1.01 per unit, P < 0.001) and DLCO% predicted (OR = 1.01 per unit, P < 0.001), and increasing age (1.02 per year, P < 0.001) independently predicted pulmonary complications. When examining pulmonary complications in patients with FEV1 less than 60% predicted, thoracotomy patients have markedly increased pulmonary complications when compared with VATS patients (P = 0.023). No significant difference is noted with FEV1 more than 60% predicted. Conclusions Poor pulmonary function predicts respiratory complications regardless of approach. Respiratory complications increase at a significantly greater rate in lobectomy patients with poor pulmonary function after thoracotomy compared with VATS. Planned surgical approach should be considered while determining whether a high-risk patient is an appropriate resection candidate.

Objective: Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has improved patient outcomes; however, postoperative pain remains potentially severe. The objective of this study was to compare adjunct analgesic modalities for VATS, including paravertebral nerve blockade (PVB) and thoracic epidural anesthesia (TEA). Design: Prospective, randomized trial. Setting: Large academic hospital, single institution. Participants: Adult patients undergoing VATS. Interventions: Ultrasound-guided PVB catheter, ultrasound-guided single-injection PVB, or TEA. Measurements and Main Results: Postoperative visual analog scale pain scores (at rest and with knee flexion) and opioid usage were recorded. Pain scores (with movement) for the TEA group were lower than those for either PVB group at 24 hours (p 0.008) and for the PVB catheter group at 48 hours (p = 0.002). Opioid use in TEA group was lower than that for either PVB group at 24 and 48 hours (p < 0.001) and 72 hours (p < 0.05). Single-injection PVB was faster compared with PVB catheter placement (6 min v 12 min; p < 0.001) but similar to TEA (5 min). Patient satisfaction, nausea, sedation, and 6-month postsurgical pain did not differ between groups. Conclusions: TEA led to lower pain scores and opioid requirement for VATS procedures compared with PVB techniques. Single-injection PVB was faster and equally as effective as PVB catheter, and it led to similar patient satisfaction as TEA; therefore, it should be considered in patients who are not ideal candidates for TEA.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundAwareness of lung cancer screening remains low in the screening-eligible population, and when patients visit their clinician never having heard of lung cancer screening, engaging in shared decision making to arrive at an informed decision can be a challenge. Therefore, methods to effectively support both patients and clinicians to engage in these important discussions are essential. To facilitate shared decision making about lung cancer screening, effective methods to prepare patients to have these important discussions with their clinician are needed.ObjectiveOur objective is to develop a computer-tailored decision support tool that meets the certification criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument version 4.0 that will support shared decision making in lung cancer screening decisions.MethodsUsing a 3-phase process, we will develop and test a prototype of a computer-tailored decision support tool in a sample of lung cancer screening-eligible individuals. In phase I, we assembled a community advisory board comprising 10 screening-eligible individuals to develop the prototype. In phase II, we recruited a sample of 13 screening-eligible individuals to test the prototype for usability, acceptability, and satisfaction. In phase III, we are conducting a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 60 screening-eligible participants who have never been screened for lung cancer. Outcomes tested include lung cancer and screening knowledge, lung cancer screening health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and self-efficacy), perception of being prepared to engage in a patient-clinician discussion about lung cancer screening, occurrence of a patient-clinician discussion about lung cancer screening, and stage of adoption for lung cancer screening.ResultsPhases I and II are complete. Phase III is underway. As of July 15, 2017, 60 participants have been enrolled into the study, and have completed the baseline survey, intervention, and first follow-up survey. We expect to have results by December 31, 2017 and to have data analysis completed by March 1, 2018.ConclusionsResults from usability testing indicate that the computer-tailored decision support tool is easy to use, is helpful, and provides a satisfactory experience for the user. At the conclusion of phase III (pilot RCT), we will have preliminary effect sizes to inform a future fully powered RCT on changes in (1) knowledge about lung cancer and screening, (2) perceived risk of lung cancer, (3) perceived benefits of lung cancer screening, (4) perceived barriers to lung cancer screening, (5) self-efficacy for lung cancer screening, and (6) perceptions of being adequately prepared to engage in a discussion with their clinician about lung cancer screening.

No abstract

Key Points Question Is there an association among allostatic load (AL), social determinants of health (SDHs), and overall mortality in patients with metastatic non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 143 patients with metastatic NSCLC, elevated AL was associated with adverse SDHs and worse overall mortality. Meaning These findings suggest that AL should be considered as a biological correlate of SDHs and a prognostic marker for overall mortality among patients with metastatic NSCLC.

BACKGROUND Management of patients requiring antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel (Plavix) and major lung resection must balance the risks of bleeding and cardiovascular events. We reviewed our experience with patients treated with clopidogrel perioperatively to examine outcomes, including results of a new strategy for high-risk patients. METHODS Patients who underwent major lung resection and received perioperative clopidogrel between January 2005 and September 2010 were reviewed. Initially, clopidogrel management consisted of discontinuation approximately 5 days before surgery and resumption immediately after surgery. Following July 2010, high-risk patients (drug-eluting coronary stent placement within prior year or previous coronary event after clopidogrel discontinuation) were admitted 2–3 days preoperatively and bridged with the intravenous GP IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitor eptifibatide (Integrilin) according to a multidisciplinary cardiology/anesthesiology/thoracic surgery protocol. Outcomes were compared to control patients (matched for preoperative risk factors and extent of pulmonary resection) who did not receive perioperative clopidogrel. RESULTS Fifty-four patients who had major lung resection between January 2005 and September 2010 and received clopidogrel perioperatively were matched with 108 controls. Both groups had similar mortality, postoperative length of stay, and no differences in the rates of perioperative transfusions, reoperations for bleeding, myocardial infarctions, and strokes. Seven of the 54 clopidogrel patients were admitted preoperatively for an eptifibatide bridge. Two of these patients received perioperative transfusions, but there were no mortalities, reoperations, myocardial infarctions, or stroke. CONCLUSIONS Patients taking clopidogrel can safely undergo major lung resection. Treatment with an eptifibatide bridge may minimize the risk of cardiovascular events in higher risk patients.