Literature DB >> 21835401

All-cause mortality after first ERCP in England: clinically guided analysis of hospital episode statistics with linkage to registry of death.

Keith Bodger1, Katherine Bowering, Sanchoy Sarkar, Elizabeth Thompson, Michael G Pearson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: All-cause death within 30 days of ERCP is a candidate indicator of care, but institutional-level statistics require careful interpretation. National-scale, population-based outcome studies of unselected patients undergoing ERCP are needed to define expected levels of real-world mortality risk and the case-mix factors that predict poor outcome.
OBJECTIVE: To develop methods for analyzing administrative data for English hospitals with linkage to death registration to study all-cause mortality after first ERCPs and explore predictors of death and institutional variation.
DESIGN: Hospital episode statistics for 2006 to 2007 and 2007 to 2008 were linked to the statutory death register. First ERCP episodes were extracted and analyzed for demographic characteristics, admission method, diagnoses, and comorbidities. Additional linkages identified the last-coded diagnosis before death. Factors associated with 30-day death were identified by univariate and multiple logistic analyses. Pilot data and a survey were sent to clinicians at each institution. Crude and case-mix adjusted mortality were analyzed at the institutional level. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Death within 30 days of the first ERCP procedure.
RESULTS: We analyzed 20,246 first ERCPs from 2006 to 2007 and 20,422 from 2007 to 2008. Diagnostic profile: gallstone related 57.3%; cancer 12.6%; gallstone and cancer 2%; others 28.1%. All-cause 30-day death was 5.3% (2.4% in non-cancer cases). Predictors of 30-day death (adjusted odds ratio [OR]) were as follows: age (OR 6.2, for ≥85 years vs <55 years), male sex (OR 1.2 vs female), emergency admission (OR 2.0 vs elective), cancer (OR 8.6 vs no cancer), and non-cancer comorbidity (OR 1.5 vs none). A mortality risk estimator (look-up table) based on pooled data for >40,000 first ERCPs is provided. Specific procedural complication codes were identified in 1.2% of deaths (0.06% of ERCPs). At the institutional level, analysis of mortality rates was within expected statistical funnel limits, and we found no correlation with ERCP volume (Pearson r = -0.05; P > .05). LIMITATIONS: The completeness and accuracy of coding may vary between different hospitals. Routine coding does not capture information about procedural complexity or severity of illness.
CONCLUSION: Linkage analysis of hospital episode statistics data for England provides a powerful tool for studying mortality risk after ERCP on an unselected and truly nationwide scale. Institutional-level statistics suggest that the mortality risk for patients requiring ERCP was comparable across English hospitals.
Copyright © 2011 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21835401     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.06.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  13 in total

1.  Trans-Gastric ERCP After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Alberto Aiolfi; Emanuele Asti; Emanuele Rausa; Daniele Bernardi; Gianluca Bonitta; Luigi Bonavina
Journal:  Obes Surg       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 4.129

2.  The ERCP quality network benchmarking project: a preliminary comparison of practice in UK and USA.

Authors:  Kofi W Oppong; Joseph Romagnuolo; Peter B Cotton
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-05-01

3.  Trends in the Use of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography for the Management of Chronic Pancreatitis in the United States.

Authors:  Clancy J Clark; Nora F Fino; Norman Clark; Armando Rosales; Girsh Mishra; Rishi Pawa
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 3.062

4.  Hospital volume status is related to technical failure and all-cause mortality following ERCP for benign disease.

Authors:  Evangelos Kalaitzakis; Ervin Toth
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2015-01-06       Impact factor: 3.199

5.  Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: is the centre better? The case against centralisation of ERCP services.

Authors:  A Frank Muller
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-11-29

6.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of endoscopic ultrasound versus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography in patients with suspected common bile duct stones.

Authors:  Stephen Morris; Kurinchi S Gurusamy; Jessica Sheringham; Brian R Davidson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-23       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: utilisation and outcomes in a 10-year population-based cohort.

Authors:  Nayantara Coelho-Prabhu; Nilay D Shah; Holly Van Houten; Patrick S Kamath; Todd H Baron
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2013-05-31       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Nationwide improvement in outcomes of emergency admission for ulcerative colitis in England, 2005-2013.

Authors:  Mustafa Shawihdi; Susanna Dodd; Constantinos Kallis; Pete Dixon; Ruth Grainger; Stuart Bloom; Fraser Cummings; Mike Pearson; Keith Bodger
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2019-05-28       Impact factor: 8.171

9.  ERCP-related perforations: a population-based study of incidence, mortality, and risk factors.

Authors:  Ann Langerth; Bengt Isaksson; Britt-Marie Karlson; Jozef Urdzik; Stefan Linder
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-09-26       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Higher volume providers are associated with improved outcomes following ERCP for the palliation of malignant biliary obstruction.

Authors:  Philip R Harvey; Simon Baldwin; Jemma Mytton; Amandip Dosanjh; Felicity Evison; Prashant Patel; Nigel J Trudgill
Journal:  EClinicalMedicine       Date:  2020-01-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.