Literature DB >> 27505113

A National Database Analysis Comparing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in Laparoscopic vs Open Colectomies: Inherent Variance May Impact Outcomes.

Andrew T Schlussel1, Conor P Delaney, Justin A Maykel, Michael B Lustik, Madhuri Nishtala, Scott R Steele.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical and administrative databases each have fundamental distinctions and inherent limitations that may impact results.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, focusing on the similarities, differences, and limitations of both data sets.
DESIGN: All elective open and laparoscopic segmental colectomies from American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (2006-2013) and Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2006-2012) were reviewed. International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification coding identified Nationwide Inpatient Sample cases, and Current Procedural Terminology coding for American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. Common demographics and comorbidities were identified, and in-hospital outcomes were evaluated. SETTINGS: A national sample was extracted from population databases. PATIENTS: Data were derived from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database: 188,326 cases (laparoscopic = 67,245; open = 121,081); and American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: 110,666 cases (laparoscopic = 54,191; open = 56,475). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Colectomy data were used as an avenue to compare differences in patient characteristics and outcomes between these 2 data sets.
RESULTS: Laparoscopic colectomy demonstrated superior outcomes compared with open; therefore, results focused on comparing a minimally invasive approach among the data sets. Because of sample size, many variables were statistically different without clinical relevance. Coding discrepancies were demonstrated in the rate of conversion from laparoscopic to open identified in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (3%) and Nationwide Inpatient Sample (15%) data sets. The prevalence of nonmorbid obesity and anemia from National Surgical Quality Improvement Program was more than twice that of Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Sepsis was statistically greater in National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, with urinary tract infections and acute kidney injury having a greater frequency in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample cohort. Surgical site infections were higher in National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (30-day) vs Nationwide Inpatient Sample (8.4% vs 2.6%; p < 0.01), albeit less when restricted to infections that occurred before discharge (3.3% vs 2.6%; p < 0.01). LIMITATIONS: This is a retrospective study using population-based data.
CONCLUSION: This analysis of 2 large national databases regarding colectomy outcomes highlights the incidence of previously unrecognized data variability. These discrepancies can impact study results and subsequent conclusions/recommendations. These findings underscore the importance of carefully choosing and understanding the different population-based data sets before designing and when interpreting outcomes research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27505113     DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0000000000000642

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum        ISSN: 0012-3706            Impact factor:   4.585


  8 in total

Review 1.  Outcomes after bariatric surgery according to large databases: a systematic review.

Authors:  Andrea Balla; Gabriela Batista Rodríguez; Santiago Corradetti; Carmen Balagué; Sonia Fernández-Ananín; Eduard M Targarona
Journal:  Langenbecks Arch Surg       Date:  2017-08-05       Impact factor: 3.445

Review 2.  What have we learned in minimally invasive colorectal surgery from NSQIP and NIS large databases? A systematic review.

Authors:  Gabriela Batista Rodríguez; Andrea Balla; Santiago Corradetti; Carmen Martinez; Pilar Hernández; Jesús Bollo; Eduard M Targarona
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2018-04-06       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  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

4.  Paraesophageal Hernia Repair in the USA: Trends of Utilization Stratified by Surgical Volume and Consequent Impact on Perioperative Outcomes.

Authors:  Francisco Schlottmann; Paula D Strassle; Marco E Allaix; Marco G Patti
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2017-06-12       Impact factor: 3.452

5.  Laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer in an elderly population with high comorbidity: a single centre experience.

Authors:  Gerald Drews; Beatrix Bohnsteen; Jürgen Knolle; Elise Gradhand; Peter Würl
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2022-08-05       Impact factor: 2.796

6.  Predicting Risk of Perioperative Ischemic Optic Neuropathy in Spine Fusion Surgery: A Cohort Study Using the National Inpatient Sample.

Authors:  Shikhar H Shah; Yi-Fan Chen; Heather E Moss; Daniel S Rubin; Charlotte E Joslin; Steven Roth
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 5.108

Review 7.  Re-appraisal and consideration of minimally invasive surgery in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Mahmoud Abu Gazala; Steven D Wexner
Journal:  Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf)       Date:  2017-02-06

8.  Prognostic models for intracerebral hemorrhage: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Tiago Gregório; Sara Pipa; Pedro Cavaleiro; Gabriel Atanásio; Inês Albuquerque; Paulo Castro Chaves; Luís Azevedo
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-11-20       Impact factor: 4.615

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.