OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the relationship between hospital volume and mortality has changed over time. BACKGROUND: It is generally accepted that hospital volume is associated with mortality in high-risk procedures. However, as surgical safety has improved over the last decade, recent evidence has suggested that the inverse relationship has diminished or been eliminated. METHODS: Using national Medicare claims data from 2000 through 2009, we examined mortality among 3,282,127 patients who underwent 1 of 8 gastrointestinal, cardiac, or vascular procedures. Hospitals were stratified into quintiles of operative volume. Using multivariable logistic regression models to adjust for patient characteristics, we examined the relationship between hospital volume and mortality, and assessed for changes over time. We performed sensitivity analyses using hierarchical logistic regression modeling with hospital-level random effects to confirm our results. RESULTS: Throughout the 10-year period, a significant inverse relationship was observed in all procedures. In 5 of the 8 procedures studied, the strength of the volume-outcome relationship increased over time. In esophagectomy, for example, the adjusted odds ratio of mortality in very low volume hospitals compared to very high volume hospitals increased from 2.25 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.57-3.23] in 2000-2001 to 3.68 (95% CI: 2.66-5.11) in 2008-2009. Only pancreatectomy showed a notable decrease in strength of the relationship over time, from 5.83 (95% CI: 3.64-9.36) in 2000-2001, to 3.08 (95% CI: 2.07-4.57) in 2008-2009. CONCLUSIONS: For all procedures examined, higher volume hospitals had significantly lower mortality rates than lower volume hospitals. Despite recent improvements in surgical safety, the strong inverse relationship between hospital volume and mortality persists in the modern era.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the relationship between hospital volume and mortality has changed over time. BACKGROUND: It is generally accepted that hospital volume is associated with mortality in high-risk procedures. However, as surgical safety has improved over the last decade, recent evidence has suggested that the inverse relationship has diminished or been eliminated. METHODS: Using national Medicare claims data from 2000 through 2009, we examined mortality among 3,282,127 patients who underwent 1 of 8 gastrointestinal, cardiac, or vascular procedures. Hospitals were stratified into quintiles of operative volume. Using multivariable logistic regression models to adjust for patient characteristics, we examined the relationship between hospital volume and mortality, and assessed for changes over time. We performed sensitivity analyses using hierarchical logistic regression modeling with hospital-level random effects to confirm our results. RESULTS: Throughout the 10-year period, a significant inverse relationship was observed in all procedures. In 5 of the 8 procedures studied, the strength of the volume-outcome relationship increased over time. In esophagectomy, for example, the adjusted odds ratio of mortality in very low volume hospitals compared to very high volume hospitals increased from 2.25 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.57-3.23] in 2000-2001 to 3.68 (95% CI: 2.66-5.11) in 2008-2009. Only pancreatectomy showed a notable decrease in strength of the relationship over time, from 5.83 (95% CI: 3.64-9.36) in 2000-2001, to 3.08 (95% CI: 2.07-4.57) in 2008-2009. CONCLUSIONS: For all procedures examined, higher volume hospitals had significantly lower mortality rates than lower volume hospitals. Despite recent improvements in surgical safety, the strong inverse relationship between hospital volume and mortality persists in the modern era.
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Martin Nuttall; Jan van der Meulen; Nirree Phillips; Carlos Sharpin; David Gillatt; Gregor McIntosh; Mark Emberton Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: A V Diez Roux; S S Merkin; D Arnett; L Chambless; M Massing; F J Nieto; P Sorlie; M Szklo; H A Tyroler; R L Watson Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2001-07-12 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Jeffrey N Katz; Jane Barrett; Nizar N Mahomed; John A Baron; R John Wright; Elena Losina Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Pari V Pandharipande; Curtis Heberle; Emily C Dowling; Chung Yin Kong; Angela Tramontano; Katherine E Perzan; William Brugge; Chin Hur Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-11-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Christian Lopez Ramos; Michael G Brandel; Robert C Rennert; Brian R Hirshman; Arvin R Wali; Jeffrey A Steinberg; David R Santiago-Dieppa; Mitchell Flagg; Scott E Olson; J Scott Pannell; Alexander A Khalessi Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Inderpal S Sarkaria; Nabil P Rizk; Rachel Grosser; Debra Goldman; David J Finley; Amanda Ghanie; Camelia S Sima; Manjit S Bains; Prasad S Adusumilli; Valerie W Rusch; David R Jones Journal: Innovations (Phila) Date: 2016 Jul-Aug
Authors: Daniela Molena; Francisco Schlottmann; Joshua A Boys; Shanda H Blackmon; Karen J Dickinson; Christy M Dunst; Wayne L Hofstetter; Michal J Lada; Brian E Louie; Benedetto Mungo; Thomas J Watson; Steven R DeMeester Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 3.452