Yên-Lan Nguyen1, David J Wallace2, Youri Yordanov3, Ludovic Trinquart4, Josefin Blomkvist4, Derek C Angus2, Jeremy M Kahn2, Philippe Ravaud4, Bertrand Guidet5. 1. Anesthesiology and Surgical Critical Care Department, Cochin Hospital, Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP), Paris Descartes University, Paris, France; Clinical Epidemiology Center, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U1153, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, APHP, Paris, France; Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique INSERM U1136, UPMC Université Paris 06, Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France. Electronic address: yenlanc.nguyen@gmail.com. 2. CRISMA Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA. 3. Clinical Epidemiology Center, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U1153, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, APHP, Paris, France; Emergency Department, Saint Antoine Hospital, APHP, Paris, France. 4. Clinical Epidemiology Center, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) U1153, Hôtel-Dieu Hospital, APHP, Paris, France; French Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Paris, France. 5. Institut Pierre Louis d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique INSERM U1136, UPMC Université Paris 06, Sorbonne Universités, Paris, France; Medical Intensive Care Unit, Saint Antoine Hospital, APHP, Paris, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the research on volume and outcome relationships in critical care. METHODS: From January 1, 2001, to April 30, 2014, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for studies assessing the relationship between admission volume and clinical outcomes in critical illness. Bibliographies were reviewed to identify other articles of interest, and experts were contacted about missing or unpublished studies. Of 127 studies reviewed, 46 met inclusion criteria, covering seven clinical conditions. Two investigators independently reviewed each article using a standardized form to abstract information on key study characteristics and results. RESULTS: Overall, 29 of the studies (63%) reported a statistically significant association between higher admission volume and improved outcomes. The magnitude of the association (mortality OR between the lowest vs highest stratum of volume centers), as well as the thresholds used to characterize high volume, varied across clinical conditions. Critically ill patients with cardiovascular (n = 7, OR = 1.49 [1.11-2.00]), respiratory (n = 12, OR = 1.20 [1.04-1.38]), severe sepsis (n = 4, OR = 1.17 [1.03-1.33]), hepato-GI (n = 3, OR = 1.30 [1.08-1.78]), neurologic (n = 3, OR = 1.38 [1.22-1.57]), and postoperative admission diagnoses (n = 3, OR = 2.95 [1.05-8.30]) were more likely to benefit from admission to higher-volume centers compared with lower-volume centers. Studies that controlled for ICU or hospital organizational factors were less likely to find a significant volume-outcome relationship than studies that did not control for these factors. CONCLUSIONS: Critically ill patients generally benefit from care in high-volume centers, with more substantial benefits in selected high-risk conditions. This relationship may in part be mediated by specific ICU and hospital organizational factors.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the research on volume and outcome relationships in critical care. METHODS: From January 1, 2001, to April 30, 2014, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for studies assessing the relationship between admission volume and clinical outcomes in critical illness. Bibliographies were reviewed to identify other articles of interest, and experts were contacted about missing or unpublished studies. Of 127 studies reviewed, 46 met inclusion criteria, covering seven clinical conditions. Two investigators independently reviewed each article using a standardized form to abstract information on key study characteristics and results. RESULTS: Overall, 29 of the studies (63%) reported a statistically significant association between higher admission volume and improved outcomes. The magnitude of the association (mortality OR between the lowest vs highest stratum of volume centers), as well as the thresholds used to characterize high volume, varied across clinical conditions. Critically illpatients with cardiovascular (n = 7, OR = 1.49 [1.11-2.00]), respiratory (n = 12, OR = 1.20 [1.04-1.38]), severe sepsis (n = 4, OR = 1.17 [1.03-1.33]), hepato-GI (n = 3, OR = 1.30 [1.08-1.78]), neurologic (n = 3, OR = 1.38 [1.22-1.57]), and postoperative admission diagnoses (n = 3, OR = 2.95 [1.05-8.30]) were more likely to benefit from admission to higher-volume centers compared with lower-volume centers. Studies that controlled for ICU or hospital organizational factors were less likely to find a significant volume-outcome relationship than studies that did not control for these factors. CONCLUSIONS:Critically illpatients generally benefit from care in high-volume centers, with more substantial benefits in selected high-risk conditions. This relationship may in part be mediated by specific ICU and hospital organizational factors.
Authors: Ellen J MacKenzie; Frederick P Rivara; Gregory J Jurkovich; Avery B Nathens; Katherine P Frey; Brian L Egleston; David S Salkever; Daniel O Scharfstein Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-01-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: A J Hartz; H Krakauer; E M Kuhn; M Young; S J Jacobsen; G Gay; L Muenz; M Katzoff; R C Bailey; A A Rimm Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1989-12-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Lakshmi Durairaj; James C Torner; Elizabeth A Chrischilles; Mary S Vaughan Sarrazin; Jon Yankey; Gary E Rosenthal Journal: Chest Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Edmond W Chen; John G Canto; Lori S Parsons; Eric D Peterson; Katherine A Littrell; Nathan R Every; C Michael Gibson; Judith S Hochman; E Magnus Ohman; Morris Cheeks; Hal V Barron Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-08-11 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: DeWitte T Cross; David L Tirschwell; Mary Ann Clark; Dan Tuden; Colin P Derdeyn; Christopher J Moran; Ralph G Dacey Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Jeremy M Kahn; Billie S Davis; Tri Q Le; Jonathan G Yabes; Chung-Chou H Chang; Derek C Angus Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Anuj B Mehta; Allan J Walkey; Douglas Curran-Everett; Daniel Matlock; Ivor S Douglas Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Nicholas M Mohr; Karisa K Harland; Dan M Shane; Azeemuddin Ahmed; Brian M Fuller; James C Torner Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2016-07-26 Impact factor: 3.425