RATIONALE: Regionalization has been proposed as a method to improve outcomes for medical patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit. OBJECTIVES: To determine the number of patients who would be affected by regionalization and the potential mortality reduction under a regionalized system of care. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study with Monte Carlo simulation, using 2001 state discharge data from eight states representing 42% of the U.S. population. Adult medical patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation were identified. Patient location and hospital mortality rates were obtained from the discharge data; estimates of the relative risk reduction in hospital mortality for high-volume hospitals compared with low-volume hospitals were obtained from the published literature and applied to the cohort. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 180,976 adult medical patients who underwent mechanical ventilation at 1,170 nonfederal hospitals, 83,050 (46%) received mechanical ventilation at 887 (76%) hospitals with low annual volumes (fewer than 275 patients per year). Using published risk estimates, approximately 4,720 lives per year (95% range, 2,522-6,744) could potentially be saved in the 8 states by routinely transferring patients from low- to high-volume hospitals, representing a number needed to treat of 15.7. The median distance that patients would need to travel to reach a high-volume hospital was 8.5 miles (interquartile range, 4.0-21.2 mi). CONCLUSIONS: Regionalization of intensive care could potentially improve survival for patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Transfer distances are modest for most patients.
RATIONALE: Regionalization has been proposed as a method to improve outcomes for medical patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit. OBJECTIVES: To determine the number of patients who would be affected by regionalization and the potential mortality reduction under a regionalized system of care. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study with Monte Carlo simulation, using 2001 state discharge data from eight states representing 42% of the U.S. population. Adult medical patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation were identified. Patient location and hospital mortality rates were obtained from the discharge data; estimates of the relative risk reduction in hospital mortality for high-volume hospitals compared with low-volume hospitals were obtained from the published literature and applied to the cohort. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 180,976 adult medical patients who underwent mechanical ventilation at 1,170 nonfederal hospitals, 83,050 (46%) received mechanical ventilation at 887 (76%) hospitals with low annual volumes (fewer than 275 patients per year). Using published risk estimates, approximately 4,720 lives per year (95% range, 2,522-6,744) could potentially be saved in the 8 states by routinely transferring patients from low- to high-volume hospitals, representing a number needed to treat of 15.7. The median distance that patients would need to travel to reach a high-volume hospital was 8.5 miles (interquartile range, 4.0-21.2 mi). CONCLUSIONS: Regionalization of intensive care could potentially improve survival for patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Transfer distances are modest for most patients.
Authors: E Rivers; B Nguyen; S Havstad; J Ressler; A Muzzin; B Knoblich; E Peterson; M Tomlanovich Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-11-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: G R Bernard; J L Vincent; P F Laterre; S P LaRosa; J F Dhainaut; A Lopez-Rodriguez; J S Steingrub; G E Garber; J D Helterbrand; E W Ely; C J Fisher Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-03-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeremy M Kahn; Christopher H Goss; Patrick J Heagerty; Andrew A Kramer; Chelsea R O'Brien; Gordon D Rubenfeld Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-07-06 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Javier Cifuentes; Janet Bronstein; Ciaran S Phibbs; Roderic H Phibbs; Susan K Schmitt; Waldemar A Carlo Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Andrés Esteban; Antonio Anzueto; Fernando Frutos; Inmaculada Alía; Laurent Brochard; Thomas E Stewart; Salvador Benito; Scott K Epstein; Carlos Apezteguía; Peter Nightingale; Alejandro C Arroliga; Martin J Tobin Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-01-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Roy G Brower; Michael A Matthay; Alan Morris; David Schoenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Arthur Wheeler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-05-04 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nicole B Gabler; Sarah J Ratcliffe; Jason Wagner; David A Asch; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Derek C Angus; Scott D Halpern Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2013-10-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Jeremy M Kahn; Kimberly J Rak; Courtney C Kuza; Laura Ellen Ashcraft; Amber E Barnato; Jessica C Fleck; Tina B Hershey; Marilyn Hravnak; Derek C Angus Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2019-04-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Jeffrey R Dichter; Robert K Kanter; David Dries; Valerie Luyckx; Matthew L Lim; John Wilgis; Michael R Anderson; Babak Sarani; Nathaniel Hupert; Ryan Mutter; Asha V Devereaux; Michael D Christian; Niranjan Kissoon Journal: Chest Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Anuj B Mehta; Allan J Walkey; Douglas Curran-Everett; Daniel Matlock; Ivor S Douglas Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 7.598