Literature DB >> 16634089

Volume and process of care in high-risk cancer surgery.

John D Birkmeyer1, Yating Sun, Aaron Goldfaden, Nancy J O Birkmeyer, Therese A Stukel.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although relations between procedure volume and operative mortality are well established for high-risk cancer operations, differences in clinical practice between high-volume and low-volume centers are not well understood. The current study was conducted to examine relations between hospital volume, process of care, and operative mortality in cancer surgery.
METHODS: Using the Medicare claims database (2000-2002), we identified all patients undergoing major resections for lung, esophageal, gastric, liver, or pancreatic cancer (n=71,558). Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative processes of care potentially related to operative mortality were identified from inpatient, outpatient, and physician claims files using appropriate International Classification of Diseases--Clinical Modification (ICD-9) and Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. We then assessed variation in the use of each process according to hospital volume, adjusting for patient characteristics and procedure type. Study Participants were US Medicare patients. The main outcome measure was specific processes of care.
RESULTS: Relative to those at low-volume centers (lowest 20th by volume), patients at high-volume hospitals (highest 20th) were significantly more likely to undergo stress tests (odds ratio [OR]: 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-1.87), but not other preoperative imaging tests. They were more likely to see medical or radiation oncologists (OR: 1.37, 95% CI: 1.16-1.62), but not other specialists, preoperatively. Although blood transfusions and use of epidural pain management did not vary significantly by volume, patients at high-volume hospitals had significantly longer operations and were more likely to receive perioperative invasive monitoring (OR: 2.56, 95% CI: 1.82-3.60). Differences in measurable processes of care did not explain volume-related differences in operative mortality to any significant degree.
CONCLUSIONS: Although high-volume and low-volume hospitals differ with regard to many aspects of perioperative care, mechanisms underlying volume-outcome relations in high-risk cancer surgery remain to be identified. Copyright (c) 2006 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16634089     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.21888

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  55 in total

1.  The effect of surgical volume and the provision of residency and fellowship training on complications of major hepatic resection.

Authors:  Geoffrey Paul Kohn; Mehrdad Nikfarjam
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2010-09-08       Impact factor: 3.452

2.  Laparoscopic versus open distal gastrectomy for locally advanced gastric cancer: a case-control study.

Authors:  Marco Scatizzi; Katrin C Kröning; Elisa Lenzi; Luca Moraldi; Stefano Cantafio; Francesco Feroci
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2011-02-01

3.  Traveling to a High-volume Center is Associated With Improved Survival for Patients With Esophageal Cancer.

Authors:  Paul J Speicher; Brian R Englum; Asvin M Ganapathi; Xiaofei Wang; Matthew G Hartwig; Thomas A D'Amico; Mark F Berry
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Surgical specialization and operative mortality in hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HPB) surgery.

Authors:  Nicholas G Csikesz; Jessica P Simons; Jennifer F Tseng; Shimul A Shah
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2008-07-09       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  High volume and outcome after liver resection: surgeon or center?

Authors:  Robert W Eppsteiner; Nicholas G Csikesz; Jessica P Simons; Jennifer F Tseng; Shimul A Shah
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2008-08-13       Impact factor: 3.452

Review 6.  The volume effect in liver surgery--a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Arthur J Richardson; Tony C Y Pang; Emma Johnston; Michael J Hollands; Vincent W T Lam; Henry C C Pleass
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 3.452

7.  Surgeon volume metrics in laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

Authors:  Nicholas G Csikesz; Anand Singla; Melissa M Murphy; Jennifer F Tseng; Shimul A Shah
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2009-11-13       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  Population-based review of the outcomes following hepatic resection in a Canadian health region.

Authors:  Elijah Dixon; Oliver F Bathe; Andrew McKay; Isabelle You; Scot Dowden; David Sadler; Kelly W Burak; J Gregory McKinnon; Walter Miller; Francis R Sutherland
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 2.089

9.  Seasonal variation in surgical outcomes as measured by the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP).

Authors:  Michael J Englesbe; Shawn J Pelletier; John C Magee; Paul Gauger; Tracy Schifftner; William G Henderson; Shukri F Khuri; Darrell A Campbell
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 12.969

10.  Impact of Positive Margins on Survival in Patients Undergoing Esophagogastrectomy for Esophageal Cancer.

Authors:  Jeffrey Javidfar; Paul J Speicher; Matthew G Hartwig; Thomas A D'Amico; Mark F Berry
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2015-11-11       Impact factor: 4.330

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.