Literature DB >> 24979602

Is It Time to Centralize High-risk Cancer Care in the United States? Comparison of Outcomes of Esophagectomy Between England and the United States.

Aruna Munasinghe1, Sheraz R Markar, Ravikrishna Mamidanna, Ara W Darzi, Omar D Faiz, George B Hanna, Donald E Low.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the difference in in-hospital mortality and length of hospital stay (LOS) after esophagectomy between the United States and England.
BACKGROUND: Since 2001, complex procedures such as esophagectomy have been centralized in England, but in the United States no formal plan for centralization exists.
METHODS: Patients who underwent esophagectomy for cancer between 2005 and 2010 were identified from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (United States) and the Hospital Episodes Statistics (England). In-hospital mortality and LOS were compared.
RESULTS: There were 7433 esophagectomies performed in 66 English hospitals and 5858 resections in 775 US hospitals; median number of resections per center per year was 17.5 in England and 2 in the United States. In-hospital mortality was greater in US hospitals (5.50% vs 4.20%, P = 0.001). In multiple regression analysis, predictors of mortality included patient age, comorbidities, hospital volume, and surgery performed in the United States [odds ratio (OR) = 1.20 (1.02-1.41), P = 0.03]. Median LOS was greater in the English hospitals (15 vs 12 days, P < 0.001). However, when subset analysis was done on high-volume centers in both health systems, mortality was significantly better in US hospitals (2.10% vs 3.50%, P = 0.02). LOS was also seen to decrease in the US high-volume centers but not in England.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this international comparison suggest that centralization of high-risk cancer surgery to centers of excellence with a high procedural volume translates into an improved clinical outcome. These findings should be factored into discussions regarding future service configuration of major cancer surgery in the United States.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 24979602     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000000805

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Surg        ISSN: 0003-4932            Impact factor:   12.969


  30 in total

1.  Perioperative outcomes of esophageal cancer surgery in a mid-volume institution in the era of centralization.

Authors:  Silvio Däster; Savas D Soysal; Luca Koechlin; Lea Stoll; Ralph Peterli; Markus von Flüe; Christoph Ackermann
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 3.445

2.  [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 3.  Is There a Rationale for Structural Quality Assurance in Esophageal Surgery?

Authors:  Torben Glatz; Jens Höppner
Journal:  Visc Med       Date:  2017-03-24

Review 4.  Esophageal surgery in Italy. Criteria to identify the hospital units and the tertiary referral centers entitled to perform it.

Authors:  Paolo Parise; Ugo Elmore; Uberto Fumagalli; Giovanni De Manzoni; Simone Giacopuzzi; Riccardo Rosati
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2016-05-30

5.  Higher clinical suspicion is needed for prompt diagnosis of esophageal adenocarcinoma in young patients.

Authors:  Tamar B Nobel; Michael Curry; Renee Gennarelli; David R Jones; Daniela Molena
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2019-04-16       Impact factor: 5.209

6.  Association of Surgical Volume With Perioperative Outcomes for Esophagomyotomy for Esophageal Achalasia.

Authors:  Francisco Schlottmann; Paula D Strassle; Marco G Patti
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2018-04-01       Impact factor: 14.766

7.  Treatment at low-volume hospitals is associated with reduced short-term and long-term outcomes for patients with retroperitoneal sarcoma.

Authors:  Emily Z Keung; Yi-Ju Chiang; Janice N Cormier; Keila E Torres; Kelly K Hunt; Barry W Feig; Christina L Roland
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-10-14       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Antireflux Surgery in the USA: Influence of Surgical Volume on Perioperative Outcomes and Costs-Time for Centralization?

Authors:  Francisco Schlottmann; Paula D Strassle; Marco G Patti
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Predicting opportunities to increase utilization of laparoscopy for colon cancer.

Authors:  Deborah S Keller; Niraj Parikh; Anthony J Senagore
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-08-29       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Mortality after esophagectomy is heavily impacted by center volume: retrospective analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample.

Authors:  Hans F Fuchs; Cristina R Harnsberger; Ryan C Broderick; David C Chang; Bryan J Sandler; Garth R Jacobsen; Michael Bouvet; Santiago Horgan
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-09-22       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.