Mohamed Abdelgadir Adam1, Samantha Thomas2, Linda Youngwirth1, Theodore Pappas1, Sanziana A Roman1, Julie A Sosa3. 1. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina. 3. Department of Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina3Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, North Carolina.
Abstract
Importance: There is increasing interest in expanding use of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). This procedure is complex, with data suggesting a significant association between hospital volume and outcomes. Objective: To determine whether there is an MIPD hospital volume threshold for which patient outcomes could be optimized. Design, Setting, and Participants: Adult patients undergoing MIPD were identified from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample from 2000 to 2012. Multivariable models with restricted cubic splines were used to identify a hospital volume threshold by plotting annual hospital volume against the adjusted odds of postoperative complications. The current analysis was conducted on August 16, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence of any complication. Results: Of the 865 patients who underwent MIPD, 474 (55%) were male and the median patient age was 67 years (interquartile range, 59-74 years). Among the patients, 747 (86%) had cancer and 91 (11%) had benign conditions/pancreatitis. Overall, 410 patients (47%) had postoperative complications and 31 (4%) died in-hospital. After adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics, increasing hospital volume was associated with reduced complications (overall association P < .001); the likelihood of experiencing a complication declined as hospital volume increased up to 22 cases per year (95% CI, 21-23). Median hospital volume was 6 cases per year (range, 1-60). Most patients (n = 717; 83%) underwent the procedure at low-volume (≤22 cases per year) hospitals. After adjustment for patient mix, undergoing MIPD at low- vs high-volume hospitals was significantly associated with increased odds for postoperative complications (odds ratio, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.03-2.94; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: Hospital volume is significantly associated with improved outcomes from MIPD, with a threshold of 22 cases per year. Most patients undergo MIPD at low-volume hospitals. Protocols outlining minimum procedural volume thresholds should be considered to facilitate safer dissemination of MIPD.
Importance: There is increasing interest in expanding use of minimally invasive pancreaticoduodenectomy (MIPD). This procedure is complex, with data suggesting a significant association between hospital volume and outcomes. Objective: To determine whether there is an MIPD hospital volume threshold for which patient outcomes could be optimized. Design, Setting, and Participants: Adult patients undergoing MIPD were identified from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project National Inpatient Sample from 2000 to 2012. Multivariable models with restricted cubic splines were used to identify a hospital volume threshold by plotting annual hospital volume against the adjusted odds of postoperative complications. The current analysis was conducted on August 16, 2016. Main Outcomes and Measures: Incidence of any complication. Results: Of the 865 patients who underwent MIPD, 474 (55%) were male and the median patient age was 67 years (interquartile range, 59-74 years). Among the patients, 747 (86%) had cancer and 91 (11%) had benign conditions/pancreatitis. Overall, 410 patients (47%) had postoperative complications and 31 (4%) died in-hospital. After adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics, increasing hospital volume was associated with reduced complications (overall association P < .001); the likelihood of experiencing a complication declined as hospital volume increased up to 22 cases per year (95% CI, 21-23). Median hospital volume was 6 cases per year (range, 1-60). Most patients (n = 717; 83%) underwent the procedure at low-volume (≤22 cases per year) hospitals. After adjustment for patient mix, undergoing MIPD at low- vs high-volume hospitals was significantly associated with increased odds for postoperative complications (odds ratio, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.03-2.94; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: Hospital volume is significantly associated with improved outcomes from MIPD, with a threshold of 22 cases per year. Most patients undergo MIPD at low-volume hospitals. Protocols outlining minimum procedural volume thresholds should be considered to facilitate safer dissemination of MIPD.
Authors: Hop S Tran Cao; Nicole Lopez; David C Chang; Andrew M Lowy; Michael Bouvet; Joel M Baumgartner; Mark A Talamini; Jason K Sicklick Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Murtaza Shakir; Brian A Boone; Patricio M Polanco; Mazen S Zenati; Melissa E Hogg; Allan Tsung; Haroon A Choudry; A James Moser; David L Bartlett; Herbert J Zeh; Amer H Zureikat Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Mohamed Abdelgadir Adam; John Pura; Paolo Goffredo; Michaela A Dinan; Shelby D Reed; Randall P Scheri; Terry Hyslop; Sanziana A Roman; Julie A Sosa Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Mohamed Abdelgadir Adam; Samantha Thomas; Linda Youngwirth; Terry Hyslop; Shelby D Reed; Randall P Scheri; Sanziana A Roman; Julie A Sosa Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Mohamed Abdelgadir Adam; Kingshuk Choudhury; Michaela A Dinan; Shelby D Reed; Randall P Scheri; Dan G Blazer; Sanziana A Roman; Julie A Sosa Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Heidi Nelson; Daniel J Sargent; H Sam Wieand; James Fleshman; Mehran Anvari; Steven J Stryker; Robert W Beart; Michael Hellinger; Richard Flanagan; Walter Peters; David Ota Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Aslam Ejaz; Teviah Sachs; Jin He; Gaya Spolverato; Kenzo Hirose; Nita Ahuja; Christopher L Wolfgang; Martin A Makary; Matthew Weiss; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: Surgery Date: 2014-07-10 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Brian A Boone; Mazen Zenati; Melissa E Hogg; Jennifer Steve; Arthur James Moser; David L Bartlett; Herbert J Zeh; Amer H Zureikat Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: William B Lyman; Michael Passeri; Amit Sastry; Allyson Cochran; David A Iannitti; Dionisios Vrochides; Erin H Baker; John B Martinie Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Eliza W Beal; Rittal Mehta; J Madison Hyer; Anghela Paredes; Katiuscha Merath; Mary E Dillhoff; Jordan Cloyd; Aslam Ejaz; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-02-27 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Ibrahim Nassour; Michael A Choti; Matthew R Porembka; Adam C Yopp; Sam C Wang; Patricio M Polanco Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2017-12-26 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: MaryJoe K Rice; Jacob C Hodges; Johanna Bellon; Jeffrey Borrebach; Amr I Al Abbas; Ahmad Hamad; L Mark Knab; A James Moser; Amer H Zureikat; Herbert J Zeh; Melissa E Hogg Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Carolijn L Nota; Maurice J Zwart; Yuman Fong; Jeroen Hagendoorn; Melissa E Hogg; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Marc G Besselink; I Quintus Molenaar Journal: J Vis Surg Date: 2017-08-21