Literature DB >> 25915912

Doubling of 30-Day Mortality by 90 Days After Esophagectomy: A Critical Measure of Outcomes for Quality Improvement.

Haejin In1, Bryan E Palis, Ryan P Merkow, Mitchell C Posner, Mark K Ferguson, David P Winchester, Christopher M Pezzi.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to (1) compare 30- and 90-day mortality rates after esophagectomy, (2) compare drivers of 30- and 90-day mortality, and (3) examine whether 90-day mortality affects hospital rankings.
BACKGROUND: Operative mortality has traditionally been assessed at 30 days. Ninety-day mortality has been suggested as a more appropriate indicator of quality, particularly after complex cancer surgery.
METHODS: Esophagectomies for nonmetastatic esophageal cancer patients diagnosed between 2007 and 2011 were identified in the National Cancer Data Base. Mortality rates were examined by patient demographics, tumor characteristics, and hospital procedural volume. Risk-adjusted hierarchical logistic regression models examined hospital performance for mortality.
RESULTS: A total of 15,796 esophagectomy patients at 977 hospitals were available for analysis. Ninety-day overall mortality was more than double the 30-day mortality (8.9% vs 4.2%; P < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis, while both 30- and 90-day mortality were associated with patient factors such as age, comorbidity, and hospital volume, only 90-day mortality was influenced by tumor- and management-related variables such as stage, tumor location, and receipt of neoadjuvant therapy. Hospital performance was examined as top 10%, middle 10% to 90%, and lowest 10% as ranked using risk-adjusted odds of mortality. There was moderate correlation between ranking based on 30- and 90-day mortality [weighted κ = 0.45 (95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.52)]. Compared with 30-day mortality rankings, nearly 20% of hospitals changed their ranking category when 90-day mortality rankings were used.
CONCLUSIONS: Examination of 90-day mortality after esophagectomy reflects cancer patient management decisions and may provide actionable targets for quality improvement.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 25915912     DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000001215

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


  24 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

Review 2.  Esophagectomy with gastric conduit reconstruction for benign disease: extreme but important.

Authors:  Wei Guo; Su Yang; Hecheng Li
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2018-04

3.  Where the Other Half Dies: Analysis of Mortalities Occurring More Than 30 Days After Complex Cancer Surgery.

Authors:  Benjamin J Resio; Lou Gonsalves; Maureen Canavan; Lloyd Mueller; Cathryn Phillips; Tejas Sathe; Katrina Swett; Daniel J Boffa
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2020-09-03       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  Perioperative mortality and morbidity after sublobar versus lobar resection for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: post-hoc analysis of an international, randomised, phase 3 trial (CALGB/Alliance 140503).

Authors:  Nasser K Altorki; Xiaofei Wang; Dennis Wigle; Lin Gu; Gail Darling; Ahmad S Ashrafi; Rodney Landrenau; Daniel Miller; Moishe Liberman; David R Jones; Robert Keenan; Massimo Conti; Gavin Wright; Linda J Veit; Suresh S Ramalingam; Mohamed Kamel; Harvey I Pass; John D Mitchell; Thomas Stinchcombe; Everett Vokes; Leslie J Kohman
Journal:  Lancet Respir Med       Date:  2018-11-12       Impact factor: 30.700

5.  Robot-assisted minimally invasive thoraco-laparoscopic esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in the upper mediastinum.

Authors:  Sylvia van der Horst; Teun Johannes Weijs; Jelle Pieter Ruurda; Nadia Haj Mohammad; Stella Mook; Lodewijk Adriaan Anton Brosens; Richard van Hillegersberg
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 2.895

6.  Surgically Managed Clinical Stage IIIA-Clinical N2 Lung Cancer in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database.

Authors:  Daniel Boffa; Felix G Fernandez; Sunghee Kim; Andrzej Kosinski; Mark W Onaitis; Patricia Cowper; Jeffrey P Jacobs; Cameron D Wright; Joe B Putnam; Anthony P Furnary
Journal:  Ann Thorac Surg       Date:  2017-05-17       Impact factor: 4.330

7.  Deep stacked sparse auto-encoders for prediction of post-operative survival expectancy in thoracic lung cancer surgery.

Authors:  Mohammad Saber Iraji
Journal:  J Appl Biomed       Date:  2019-01-10       Impact factor: 1.797

8.  Utilization of surgical treatment for local and locoregional esophageal cancer: Analysis of the National Cancer Data Base.

Authors:  Lauren J Taylor; Caprice C Greenberg; Anne O Lidor; Glen E Leverson; James D Maloney; Ryan A Macke
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-09-28       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  Benchmark values for transthoracic esophagectomy are not set as the defined "best possible"-a validation study.

Authors:  Olli Helminen; Johanna Mrena; Eero Sihvo
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 2.895

10.  Use of 90-day mortality does not change assessment of hospital quality after coronary artery bypass grafting in New York State.

Authors:  Aaron Mittel; Dae Hyun Kim; Zara Cooper; Michael Argenziano; May Hua
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2020-04-11       Impact factor: 5.209

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.