Timing, triage, and mode of emergency general surgery interfacility transfers in the United States: A scoping review

Interhospital Transfer for Emergency General Surgery: A Contemporary National Analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing emergency general surgery (EGS) often require complex management and transfer to higher acuity facilities, especially given increasing national efforts aimed at centralizing care. We sought to characterize factors and evaluate outcomes associated with interhospital transfer using a contemporary national cohort.

METHODS

All adult hospitalizations for EGS (appendectomy, cholecystectomy, laparotomy, lysis of adhesions, small/large bowel resection, and perforated ulcer repair) ≤2 days of admission were identified in the 2016-2020 National Inpatient Sample. Patients initially admitted to a different institution and transferred to the operating hospital comprised the Transfer cohort (others: Non-Transfer). Multivariable models were developed to consider the association of Transfer with outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Of ∼1 653 169 patients, 107 945 (6.5%) were considered the Transfer cohort. The proportion of patients experiencing interhospital transfer increased from 5.2% to 7.7% (2016-2020, P < .001). On average, Transfer was older, more commonly of White race, and of a higher Elixhauser comorbidity index. After adjustment, increasing age, living in a rural area, receiving care in the Midwest, and decreasing income quartile were associated with greater odds of interhospital transfer. Following risk adjustment, Transfer remained linked with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (AOR 1.64, CI 1.49-1.80), as well as any perioperative complication (AOR 1.33, CI 1.27-1.38; Reference: Non-Transfer). Additionally, Transfer was associated with significantly longer duration of hospitalization (β + 1.04 days, CI + .91-1.17) and greater costs (β+$3,490, CI + 2840-4140).

DISCUSSION

While incidence of interhospital transfer for EGS is increasing, transfer patients face greater morbidity and resource utilization. Novel interventions are needed to optimize patient selection and improve post-transfer outcomes.

Association between timing of operative interventions and mortality in emergency general surgery

ABSTRACT

Background

Emergency general surgery (EGS) often demands timely interventions, yet data for triage and timing are limited. This study explores the relationship between hospital arrival-to-operation time and mortality in EGS patients.

Study design

We performed a retrospective cohort study using an EGS registry at four hospitals, enrolling adults who underwent operative intervention for a primary American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-defined EGS diagnosis between 2021 and 2023. We excluded patients undergoing surgery more than 72 hours after admission as non-urgent and defined our exposure of interest as the time from the initial vital sign capture to the skin incision timestamp. We assessed the association between operative timing quintiles and in-hospital mortality using a mixed-effect hierarchical multivariable model, adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidities, organ dysfunction, and clustering at the hospital level.

Results

A total of 1199 patients were included. The median time to operating room (OR) was 8.2 hours (IQR 4.9-20.5 hours). Prolonged time to OR increased the relative likelihood of in-hospital mortality. Patients undergoing an operation between 6.7 and 10.7 hours after first vitals had the highest odds of in-hospital mortality compared with operative times <4.2 hours (reference quintile) (adjusted OR (aOR) 68.994; 95% CI 4.608 to 1032.980, p=0.002). A similar trend was observed among patients with operative times between 24.4 and 70.9 hours (aOR 69.682; 95% CI 2.968 to 1636.038, p=0.008).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that prompt operative intervention is associated with lower in-hospital mortality rates among EGS patients. Further work to identify the most time-sensitive populations is warranted. These results may begin to inform benchmarking for triaging interventions in the EGS population to help reduce mortality rates.

Level of evidence

IV.

European society for trauma and emergency surgery member-identified research priorities in emergency surgery: a roadmap for future clinical research opportunities

BACKGROUND

European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES) is the European community of clinicians providing care to the injured and critically ill surgical patient. ESTES has several interlinked missions - (1) the promotion of optimal emergency surgical care through networked advocacy, (2) promulgation of relevant clinical cognitive and technical skills, and (3) the advancement of scientific inquiry that closes knowledge gaps, iteratively improves upon surgical and perioperative practice, and guides decision-making rooted in scientific evidence. Faced with multitudinous opportunities for clinical research, ESTES undertook an exercise to determine member priorities for surgical research in the short-to-medium term; these research priorities were presented to a panel of experts to inform a 'road map' narrative review which anchored these research priorities in the contemporary surgical literature.

METHODS

Individual ESTES members in active emergency surgery practice were polled as a representative sample of end-users and were asked to rank potential areas of future research according to their personal perceptions of priority. Using the modified eDelphi method, an invited panel of ESTES-associated experts in academic emergency surgery then crafted a narrative review highlighting potential research priorities for the Society.

RESULTS

Seventy-two responding ESTES members from 23 countries provided feedback to guide the modified eDelphi expert consensus narrative review. Experts then crafted evidence-based mini-reviews highlighting knowledge gaps and areas of interest for future clinical research in emergency surgery: timing of surgery, inter-hospital transfer, diagnostic imaging in emergency surgery, the role of minimally-invasive surgical techniques and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols, patient-reported outcome measures, risk-stratification methods, disparities in access to care, geriatric outcomes, data registry and snapshot audit evaluations, emerging technologies interrogation, and the delivery and benchmarking of emergency surgical training.

CONCLUSIONS

This manuscript presents the priorities for future clinical research in academic emergency surgery as determined by a sample of the membership of ESTES. While the precise basis for prioritization was not evident, it may be anchored in disease prevalence, controversy around aspects of current patient care, or indeed the identification of a knowledge gap. These expert-crafted evidence-based mini-reviews provide useful insights that may guide the direction of future academic emergency surgery research efforts.