Manila Jindal1, Chaoyi Zheng2, Humair S Quadri2, Chukwuemeka U Ihemelandu1, Young K Hong3, Andrew K Smith4, Vikas Dudeja5, Nawar M Shara6, Lynt B Johnson3, Waddah B Al-Refaie7. 1. MedStar-Georgetown Surgical Outcomes Research Center, Washington, DC. 2. MedStar-Georgetown Surgical Outcomes Research Center, Washington, DC; Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics and Biomathematics, Georgetown University, Washington, DC. 3. Department of Surgery, MedStar-Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC. 4. MedStar-Georgetown Surgical Outcomes Research Center, Washington, DC; Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC. 5. Department of Surgery, University of Miami, Miami, FL. 6. MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC; Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science, Washington, DC. 7. MedStar-Georgetown Surgical Outcomes Research Center, Washington, DC; Department of Surgery, MedStar-Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, DC; MedStar Health Research Institute, Washington, DC. Electronic address: wba6@georgetown.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Centralization of complex surgical care has led patients to travel longer distances. Emerging evidence suggested a negative association between increased travel distance and mortality after pancreatectomy. However, the reason for this association remains largely unknown. We sought to unravel the relationships among travel distance, receiving pancreatectomy at high-volume hospitals, delayed surgery, and operative outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: We identified 44,476 patients who underwent pancreatectomy for neoplasms between 2004 and 2013 at the reporting facility from the National Cancer Database. Multivariable analyses were performed to examine the independent relationships between increments in travel distance mortality (30-day and long-term survival) after adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidity, cancer stage, and time trend. We then examined how additional adjustment of procedure volume affected this relationship overall and among rural patients. RESULTS: Median travel distance to undergo pancreatectomy increased from 16.5 to 18.7 miles (p for trend < 0.001). Although longer travel distance was associated with delayed pancreatectomy, it was also related to higher odds of receiving pancreatectomy at a high-volume hospital and lower postoperative mortality. In multivariable analysis, difference in mortality among patients with varying travel distance was attenuated by adjustment for procedure volume. However, longest travel distance was still associated with a 77% lower 30-day mortality rate than shortest travel among rural patients, even when accounting for procedure volume. CONCLUSIONS: Our large national study found that the beneficial effect of longer travel distance on mortality after pancreatectomy is mainly attributable to increase in procedure volume. However, it can have additional benefits on rural patients that are not explained by volume. Distance can represent a surrogate for rural populations.
BACKGROUND: Centralization of complex surgical care has led patients to travel longer distances. Emerging evidence suggested a negative association between increased travel distance and mortality after pancreatectomy. However, the reason for this association remains largely unknown. We sought to unravel the relationships among travel distance, receiving pancreatectomy at high-volume hospitals, delayed surgery, and operative outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: We identified 44,476 patients who underwent pancreatectomy for neoplasms between 2004 and 2013 at the reporting facility from the National Cancer Database. Multivariable analyses were performed to examine the independent relationships between increments in travel distance mortality (30-day and long-term survival) after adjusting for patient demographics, comorbidity, cancer stage, and time trend. We then examined how additional adjustment of procedure volume affected this relationship overall and among rural patients. RESULTS: Median travel distance to undergo pancreatectomy increased from 16.5 to 18.7 miles (p for trend < 0.001). Although longer travel distance was associated with delayed pancreatectomy, it was also related to higher odds of receiving pancreatectomy at a high-volume hospital and lower postoperative mortality. In multivariable analysis, difference in mortality among patients with varying travel distance was attenuated by adjustment for procedure volume. However, longest travel distance was still associated with a 77% lower 30-day mortality rate than shortest travel among rural patients, even when accounting for procedure volume. CONCLUSIONS: Our large national study found that the beneficial effect of longer travel distance on mortality after pancreatectomy is mainly attributable to increase in procedure volume. However, it can have additional benefits on rural patients that are not explained by volume. Distance can represent a surrogate for rural populations.
Authors: Paul J Speicher; Brian R Englum; Asvin M Ganapathi; Xiaofei Wang; Matthew G Hartwig; Thomas A D'Amico; Mark F Berry Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Ryan Z Swan; David J Niemeyer; Ramanathan M Seshadri; Kyle J Thompson; Amanda Walters; John B Martinie; David Sindram; David A Iannitti Journal: Am Surg Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 0.688
Authors: Chaoyi Zheng; Elizabeth B Habermann; Nawar M Shara; Russell C Langan; Young Hong; Lynt B Johnson; Waddah B Al-Refaie Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2016-02-05 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Erin C Hall; Chaoyi Zheng; Russell C Langan; Lynt B Johnson; Nawar Shara; Waddah B Al-Refaie Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Andrew K Smith; Nawar M Shara; Alexander Zeymo; Katherine Harris; Randy Estes; Lynt B Johnson; Waddah B Al-Refaie Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: David C Chang; Yiyi Zhang; Debraj Mukherjee; Christopher L Wolfgang; Richard D Schulick; John L Cameron; Nita Ahuja Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Abraham Markin; Elizabeth B Habermann; Christopher J Chow; Yanrong Zhu; Selwyn M Vickers; Waddah B Al-Refaie Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2012-08-17 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Michael E Lidsky; Zhifei Sun; Daniel P Nussbaum; Mohamed A Adam; Paul J Speicher; Dan G Blazer Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Laura-Mae Baldwin; Yong Cai; Eric H Larson; Sharon A Dobie; George E Wright; David C Goodman; Barbara Matthews; L Gary Hart Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2008 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Eliza W Beal; Rittal Mehta; Katiuscha Merath; Diamantis I Tsilimigras; J Madison Hyer; Anghela Paredes; Mary E Dillhoff; Jordan Cloyd; Aslam Ejaz; Timothy M Pawlik Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Zhi Ven Fong; Daniel A Hashimoto; Ginger Jin; Alex B Haynes; Numa Perez; Motaz Qadan; Cristina R Ferrone; Carlos Fernandez-Del Castillo; Andrew L Warshaw; Keith D Lillemoe; Lara N Traeger; David C Chang Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2021-08-01 Impact factor: 12.969
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: Anthony M Villano; Alexander Zeymo; James McDermott; Andrew Crocker; Jay Zeck; Kitty S Chan; Nawar Shara; Sunnie Kim; Waddah B Al-Refaie Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2019-02-20 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Amarbir S Gill; Daniel M Beswick; Jess C Mace; Dennis Menjivar; Shaelene Ashby; Ryan A Rimmer; Vijay R Ramakrishnan; Zachary M Soler; Jeremiah A Alt Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2022-06-01 Impact factor: 8.961
Authors: Robert B Hawkins; Matthew Byler; Clifford Fonner; Irving L Kron; Leora T Yarboro; Alan M Speir; Mohammed A Quader; Gorav Ailawadi; J Hunter Mehaffey Journal: J Card Surg Date: 2019-08-02 Impact factor: 1.620
Authors: Evan M Graboyes; Mark A Ellis; Hong Li; John M Kaczmar; Anand K Sharma; Eric J Lentsch; Terry A Day; Chanita Hughes Halbert Journal: Cancer Date: 2018-06-22 Impact factor: 6.860