Literature DB >> 23553312

Failure to rescue patients after reintervention in gastroesophageal cancer surgery in England.

Alex M Almoudaris1, Ravikrishna Mamidanna, Alex Bottle, Paul Aylin, Charles Vincent, Omar Faiz, George B Hanna.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Gastroesophageal cancer resections are associated with significant reintervention and perioperative mortality rates.
OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes following operative and nonoperative reinterventions between high- and low-mortality gastroesophageal cancer surgical units in England.
DESIGN: All elective esophageal and gastric resections for cancer between 2000 and 2010 in English public hospitals were identified from a national administrative database. Units were divided into low- and high-mortality units (LMUs and HMUs, respectively) using a threshold of 5% or less for 30-day adjusted mortality. The groups were compared for reoperations and nonoperative reinterventions following complications.
SETTING: Both LMUs and HMUs. PARTICIPANTS: Patients who underwent esophageal and gastric resections for cancer. EXPOSURE: Elective esophageal and gastric resections for cancer, with reoperations and nonoperative reinterventions following complications. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Failure to rescue is defined as the death of a patient following a complication; failure to rescue-surgical is defined as the death of a patient following reoperation for a surgical complication.
RESULTS: There were 14 955 esophagectomies and 10 671 gastrectomies performed in 141 units. For gastroesophageal resections combined, adjusted mortality rates were 3.0% and 8.3% (P < .001) for LMUs and HMUs, respectively. Complications rates preceding reoperation were similar (5.4% for LMUs vs. 4.9% for HMUs; P = .11). The failure to rescue-surgical rates were lower in LMUs than in HMUs (15.3% vs. 24.1%; P < .001). The LMUs performed more nonoperative reinterventions than the HMUs did (6.7% vs. 4.7%; P < .001), with more patients surviving in LMUs than in HMUs (failure to rescue rate, 7.0% vs. 12.5%; P < .001). Overall, LMUs reintervened more than HMUs did (12.2% vs 9.6%; P < .001), and LMUs had lower failure to rescue rates following reintervention than HMUs did (9.0% vs. 18.3%; P = .001). All P values stated refer to 2-sided values. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Overall, LMUs were more likely to reintervene and rescue patients following gastroesophageal cancer resections in England. Patients were more likely to survive following both reoperations and nonsurgical interventions in LMUs.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23553312     DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2013.791

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Surg        ISSN: 2168-6254            Impact factor:   14.766


  10 in total

1.  [Economic aspects of oncological esophageal surgery : Centralization is essential].

Authors:  N von Dercks; I Gockel; M Mehdorn; D Lorenz
Journal:  Chirurg       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 0.955

Review 2.  Salvage esophagectomy: safe therapeutic strategy?

Authors:  Sara Jamel; Sheraz R Markar
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.895

3.  Trends and variations in the rates of hospital complications, failure-to-rescue and 30-day mortality in surgical patients in New South Wales, Australia, 2002-2009.

Authors:  Lixin Ou; Jack Chen; Hassan Assareh; Stephanie J Hollis; Ken Hillman; Arthas Flabouris
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Geographic variation of failure-to-rescue in public acute hospitals in New South Wales, Australia.

Authors:  Hassan Assareh; Lixin Ou; Jack Chen; Kenneth Hillman; Arthas Flabouris; Stephanie J Hollis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-10-13       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  Failure to rescue patients from early critical complications of oesophagogastric cancer surgery.

Authors:  Elroy P Weledji; Vincent Verla
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2016-03-02

6.  Surgery during holiday periods and prognosis in oesophageal cancer: a population-based nationwide Swedish cohort study.

Authors:  Sheraz R Markar; Karl Wahlin; Fredrik Mattsson; Pernilla Lagergren; Jesper Lagergren
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-09-06       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  The effect of time between procedures upon the proficiency gain period for minimally invasive esophagectomy.

Authors:  Sheraz R Markar; Melody Ni; Hugh Mackenzie; Marta Penna; Omar Faiz; George B Hanna
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2020-04-20       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  A Protocol is not Enough: Enhanced Recovery Program-Based Care and Clinician Adherence Associated with Shorter Stay After Colorectal Surgery.

Authors:  Ben E Byrne; Omar D Faiz; Alex Bottle; Paul Aylin; Charles A Vincent
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2020-10-20       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Failure to rescue patients after emergency laparotomy for large bowel perforation: analysis of the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA).

Authors:  O Peacock; F Yanni; A Kuryba; D Cromwell; S Lockwood; I Anderson; R S Vohra
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2021-01-08

10.  Impact of postoperative complications on survival after oesophagectomy for oesophageal cancer.

Authors:  J R Bundred; A C Hollis; R Evans; J Hodson; J L Whiting; E A Griffiths
Journal:  BJS Open       Date:  2020-02-17
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.