Caseload as a factor for outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECT: Increasing evidence exists that treatment of complex medical conditions in high-volume centers is found to improve outcome. Patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), a complex disease, probably also benefit from treatment at a high-volume center. The authors aimed to determine, based on published literature, whether a higher hospital caseload is associated with improved outcomes of patients undergoing treatment after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.
METHODS: The authors identified studies from MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to September 28, 2012, that evaluated outcome in high-volume versus low-volume centers in patients with SAH who were treated by either clipping or endovascular coiling. No language restrictions were set. The compared outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Mortality in studies was pooled in a random effects meta-analysis. Study quality was reported according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.
RESULTS: Four articles were included in this analysis, representing 36,600 patients. The quality of studies was graded low in 3 and very low in 1. Meta-analysis using a random effects model showed a decrease in hospital mortality (OR 0.77 [95% CI 0.60-0.97]; p = 0.00; I(2) = 91%) in high-volume hospitals treating SAH patients. Sensitivity analysis revealed the relative weight of the 1 low-quality study. Removal of the study with very low quality increased the effect size of the meta-analysis to an OR of 0.68 (95% CI 0.56-0.84; p = 0.00; I(2) = 86%). The definition of hospital volume differed among studies. Cutoffs and dichotomizations were used as well as division in quartiles. In 1 study, low volume was defined as 9 or fewer patients yearly, whereas in another it was defined as fewer than 30 patients yearly. Similarly, 1 study defined high volume as more than 20 patients annually, and another defined it as more than 50 patients a year. For comparability between studies, recalculation was done with dichotomized data if available. Cross et al., 2003 (low volume ≤ 18, high volume ≥ 19) and Johnston, 2000 (low volume ≤ 31, high volume ≥ 32) provided core data for recalculation. The overall results of this analysis revealed an OR of 0.85 (95% CI 0.72-0.99; p = 0.00; I(2) = 87%).
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the shortcomings of this study, the mortality rate was lower in hospitals with a larger caseload. Limitations of the meta-analysis are the not uniform cutoff values and uncertainty about case mix.