Literature DB >> 25297443

Hospital volume and patient outcomes in hepato-pancreatico-biliary surgery: is assessing differences in mortality enough?

Eric B Schneider1, Aslam Ejaz, Gaya Spolverato, Kenzo Hirose, Martin A Makary, Christopher L Wolfgang, Nita Ahuja, Matthew Weiss, Timothy M Pawlik.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The impact of regionalization on morbidity, failure to rescue (FTR), length of stay (LOS), and readmission remains unclear. We sought to examine hospital-volume-related differences in outcomes following complex hepato-pancreatico-biliary (HPB) surgery and define potential benefits of regionalization across quality metrics.
METHODS: Patients undergoing HPB surgery in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data from 1986 to 2002 were identified. Hospital volume was stratified into tertiles (low volume [LV] <4 cases/year; intermediate volume [IV] 4-10 cases/year; high volume [HV] ≥11 cases/year). The incidence of complications, FTR (mortality following a complication), and LOS was compared across hospital-volume strata. A counterfactual model examined hypothetical outcomes assuming all patients had been treated at HV centers.
RESULTS: Ten thousand two hundred eight patients underwent pancreatic (46.1 %), hepatic (36.2 %), or biliary (17.8 %) procedures. Overall mean age ranged from 72.7 years at HV centers to 73.4 at LV centers (P < 0.001), and patients at HV centers (75.4 %) were more likely to have ≥3 comorbidities versus IV (70.0 %) or LV (64.7 %) centers (P < 0.001). The incidence of post-operative complications was lower at HV (39.1 %) compared with IV (41.9 %) or LV (44.8 %) centers. Major complications included hemorrhagic anemia (7.3 %), failure to thrive (5.1 %), and respiratory infection/failure (3.5 %); each was less common in HV hospitals (P < 0.05). FTR after major complication tended to be higher at LV (36.7 %) and IV (37.3 %) hospitals compared with HV hospitals (29.7 %) (P = 0.10). Mortality was higher at LV (10.5 %) and IV (8.1 %) hospitals versus HV centers (5.4 %) (P < 0.001). HV hospital patients had shorter median LOS (10 days) compared with IV (12 days) or LV (12 days) hospital patients (P < 0.001). Readmission varied across centers (HV 19.1 % vs. IV 19.2 % vs. 16.7 %; P = 0.02). In a counterfactual model with all patients treated at a HV center, 6.4 % fewer complications and a 26.0 % increase in post-complication rescue would be expected, along with a 32.0 % reduction in index mortality and an 8.1 % reduction in total patient-days. A minor increase in readmissions (7.1 %) would be anticipated with 13.3 % fewer deaths during readmission.
CONCLUSION: Although patients treated at HV hospitals had more medical comorbidities, outcomes across a wide spectrum of quality metrics were better than at IV or LV hospital following complex HPB surgery. A 20-30 % reduction in morbidity and mortality and an 8 % reduction in hospital patient-days could be anticipated had all patients been treated at HV hospitals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25297443     DOI: 10.1007/s11605-014-2619-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg        ISSN: 1091-255X            Impact factor:   3.452


  31 in total

1.  Hospital resources for optimal care of the injured patient. Prepared by a Task force of the Committee on Trauma of the American College of Surgeons.

Authors: 
Journal:  Bull Am Coll Surg       Date:  1979-08

2.  Optimal hospital resources for care of the seriously injured.

Authors: 
Journal:  Bull Am Coll Surg       Date:  1976-09

3.  Selective referral to high-volume hospitals: estimating potentially avoidable deaths.

Authors:  R A Dudley; K L Johansen; R Brand; D J Rennie; A Milstein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-03-01       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Using volume criteria: do California hospitals measure up?

Authors:  Jerome H Liu; David A Etzioni; Jessica B O'Connell; Melinda A Maggard; Clifford Y Ko
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 2.192

5.  Regionalization of coronary artery bypass surgery. Effects on access.

Authors:  G M Anderson; J Lomas
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Medicare program; hospital inpatient prospective payment systems for acute care hospitals and the long-term care hospital prospective payment system and fiscal year 2013 rates; hospitals' resident caps for graduate medical education payment purposes; quality reporting requirements for specific providers and for ambulatory surgical centers. final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2012-08-31

7.  Volume-based referral for cancer surgery: informing the debate.

Authors:  Brent K Hollenbeck; Rodney L Dunn; David C Miller; Stephanie Daignault; David A Taub; John T Wei
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2007-01-01       Impact factor: 44.544

8.  Organized Comprehensive Stroke Center is Associated with Reduced Mortality: Analysis of Consecutive Patients in a Single Hospital.

Authors:  Dae-Hyun Kim; Jae-Kwan Cha; Hyo-Jin Bae; Hyun-Seok Park; Jae-Hyung Choi; Myung-Jin Kang; Byoung-Gwon Kim; Jae-Taeck Huh; Sang-Beom Kim
Journal:  J Stroke       Date:  2013-01-31       Impact factor: 6.967

9.  Comprehensive stroke centers and the 'weekend effect': the SPOTRIAS experience.

Authors:  Karen C Albright; Sean I Savitz; Rema Raman; Sheryl Martin-Schild; Joseph Broderick; Karin Ernstrom; Andria Ford; Rakesh Khatri; Dawn Kleindorfer; David Liebeskind; Randolph Marshall; José G Merino; Dawn M Meyer; Natalia Rost; Brett C Meyer
Journal:  Cerebrovasc Dis       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 2.762

10.  Causal inference based on counterfactuals.

Authors:  M Höfler
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2005-09-13       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  19 in total

1.  Contemporary practice and short-term outcomes after liver resections in a complete national cohort.

Authors:  Kristoffer Lassen; Linn Såve Nymo; Frank Olsen; Kristoffer Watten Brudvik; Åsmund Avdem Fretland; Kjetil Søreide
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 2.  Effects of volume on outcome in hepatobiliary surgery: a review with guidelines proposal.

Authors:  Eloisa Franchi; Matteo Donadon; Guido Torzilli
Journal:  Glob Health Med       Date:  2020-10-31

3.  Outcomes Improvement Is Not Continuous Along the Learning Curve for Pancreaticoduodenectomy at the Hospital Level.

Authors:  Taylor M Coe; Zhi Ven Fong; Samuel E Wilson; Mark A Talamini; Keith D Lillemoe; David C Chang
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2015-10-05       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Creating a National Provider Identifier (NPI) to Unique Physician Identification Number (UPIN) Crosswalk for Medicare Data.

Authors:  Helen M Parsons; Lindsey R Enewold; Robert Banks; Michael J Barrett; Joan L Warren
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Insurance Coverage Type Impacts Hospitalization Patterns Among Patients with Hepatopancreatic Malignancies.

Authors:  Rittal Mehta; Kota Sahara; Katiuscha Merath; J Madison Hyer; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; Anghela Z Paredes; Aslam Ejaz; Jordan M Cloyd; Mary Dillhoff; Allan Tsung; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2019-06-13       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  Benign Tumors of the Pancreas-Radical Surgery Versus Parenchyma-Sparing Local Resection-the Challenge Facing Surgeons.

Authors:  Hans G Beger
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-01-03       Impact factor: 3.452

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.  Procedure-Specific Volume and Nurse-to-Patient Ratio: Implications for Failure to Rescue Patients Following Liver Surgery.

Authors:  Qinyu Chen; Griffin Olsen; Fabio Bagante; Katiuscha Merath; Jay J Idrees; Ozgur Akgul; Jordan Cloyd; Mary Dillhoff; Susan White; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 3.352

9.  Index versus Non-index Readmission After Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Surgery: Where Do Patients Go to Be Readmitted?

Authors:  Eliza W Beal; Fabio Bagante; Anghela Paredes; Qinyu Chen; Ozgur Akgul; Katiuscha Merath; Mary E Dillhoff; Jordan M Cloyd; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2018-07-23       Impact factor: 3.452

10.  Understanding drivers of hospital charge variation for episodes of care among patients undergoing hepatopancreatobiliary surgery.

Authors:  Aslam Ejaz; Yuhree Kim; Gaya Spolverato; Ryan Taylor; John Hundt; Timothy M Pawlik
Journal:  HPB (Oxford)       Date:  2015-08-08       Impact factor: 3.647

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.