Literature DB >> 14662529

National variation in operative mortality rates for esophageal resection and the need for quality improvement.

Justin B Dimick1, John A Cowan, Gorav Ailawadi, Reid M Wainess, Gilbert R Upchurch.   

Abstract

HYPOTHESIS: Operative mortality rates for esophageal resection vary across hospital volume groups in a nationally representative sample of hospitals.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of all adult patients in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample who underwent esophageal resection from 1995 through 1999 (N = 3023). Operative mortality was determined for hospital volume quartiles (low, <3 per year; medium, 3-5 per year; high, 6-16 per year; very high, >16 per year). Multiple logistic regression of in-hospital mortality was used for case-mix adjusted analyses.
SETTING: Hospitals performing at least 1 esophageal resection from 1995 through 1999 in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. PATIENTS: Patients having esophageal resection from 1995 through 1999 in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.
RESULTS: Overall mortality was 8.2% and varied 3-fold from 11.8% to 3.7% across hospital volume groups (P<.001). In the case-mix-adjusted multivariate analysis, having surgery at a low-volume hospital (odds ratio, 2.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.7-4.9; P<.001) or medium-volume hospital (odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.4-4.3; P =.002) was associated with an increased risk of mortality compared with the reference group of very high-volume hospitals. The effect of volume on mortality was significant for both malignant and benign disease. Given the absolute risk difference of 8.1% between very high- and low-volume hospitals, only 12 patients would need to be referred to prevent 1 death after esophageal resection.
CONCLUSIONS: The operative mortality rate for esophageal resection varies across hospitals in the United States. To improve the quality of care and reduce operative mortality rates for patients in need of esophageal surgery, patients should either be referred to higher-volume hospitals, or quality improvement should be directed at lower-volume hospitals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14662529     DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.138.12.1305

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Surg        ISSN: 0004-0010


  9 in total

1.  Applicability and feasibility of incorporating minimally invasive esophagectomy at a high volume center.

Authors:  Brittany L Willer; Sumeet K Mittal; Stephanie G Worrell; Seemal Mumtaz; Tommy H Lee
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-06-08       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 2.  Outcomes in oncologic surgery: does volume make a difference?

Authors:  David J Bentrem; Murray F Brennan
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  National trends in esophageal surgery--are outcomes as good as we believe?

Authors:  Geoffrey Paul Kohn; Joseph Anton Galanko; Michael Owen Meyers; Richard Harry Feins; Timothy Michael Farrell
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2009-09-16       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Volume and outcome for major upper GI surgery in England.

Authors:  N Pal; B Axisa; S Yusof; R G Newcombe; S Wemyss-Holden; M Rhodes; M P N Lewis
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  Effects of hospital and surgeon case-volumes on postoperative complications and length of stay after esophagectomy in Japan.

Authors:  Hideo Yasunaga; Yutaka Matsuyama; Kazuhiko Ohe
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2009-06-28       Impact factor: 2.549

6.  Teaching hospital status and operative mortality in the United States: tipping point in the volume-outcome relationship following colon resections?

Authors:  Awori J Hayanga; Debraj Mukherjee; David Chang; Heather Kaiser; Timothy Lee; Susan Gearhart; Nita Ahuja; Julie Freischlag
Journal:  Arch Surg       Date:  2010-04

7.  Two thousand transhiatal esophagectomies: changing trends, lessons learned.

Authors:  Mark B Orringer; Becky Marshall; Andrew C Chang; Julia Lee; Allan Pickens; Christine L Lau
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 12.969

8.  Mortality after esophagectomy is heavily impacted by center volume: retrospective analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

Authors:  Hans F Fuchs; Cristina R Harnsberger; Ryan C Broderick; David C Chang; Bryan J Sandler; Garth R Jacobsen; Michael Bouvet; Santiago Horgan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Spontaneous regionalization of esophageal cancer surgery: an analysis of the National Cancer Database.

Authors:  Brian N Arnold; Alexander S Chiu; Jessica R Hoag; Clara H Kim; Michelle C Salazar; Justin D Blasberg; Daniel J Boffa
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-03       Impact factor: 2.895

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.