Literature DB >> 28514469

Association of Very Low-Volume Practice With Vascular Surgery Outcomes in New York.

Jialin Mao1, Philip Goodney2, Jack Cronenwett2, Art Sedrakyan1.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Little research has focused on very low-volume surgery, especially in the context of decreasing vascular surgery volume with the adoption of endovascular procedures.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the existence and outcomes of open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (OAR) and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) performed by very low-volume surgeons in New York. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cohort study examined inpatient data of patients undergoing elective OAR or CEA from 2000 to 2014 from all New York hospitals. EXPOSURES: Surgeons who performed 1 or less designated procedure per year on average were considered very low volume, as opposed to higher-volume surgeons. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Temporal trends of the existence of very low-volume practice were evaluated. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to compare in-hospital outcomes and health care resource use between patients treated by very low-volume surgeons and higher-volume surgeons for both OAR and CEA, adjusting for patient, surgeon, and hospital characteristics.
RESULTS: There were 8781 OAR procedures and 68 896 CEA procedures included in the study. The mean (SD) patient age was 71.7 (8.4) years for OAR and 71.5 (9.1) years for CEA. A total of 614 surgeons performed OAR and 1071 performed CEA in New York during the study period. Of these, 318 (51.8%) and 512 (47.8%), respectively, were very low-volume surgeons. Very low-volume surgeons were less likely to be vascular surgeons. The number and proportion of very low-volume surgeons decreased over years. Compared with patients treated by higher-volume surgeons, those treated by very low-volume surgeons were more likely to have higher in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.09; 95% CI, 1.41-3.08) following OAR and higher risks of postoperative myocardial infarction (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.03-3.26) and stroke (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.21-2.62) following CEA. Patients treated by very low-volume surgeons also had greater health care resource use following both surgeries, including prolonged length of stay (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.11-1.70) following OAR as well as higher charges (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.01-1.62) and increased 30-day readmission (OR, 1.30; 95% CI 1.04-1.62) following CEA. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The OAR and CEA procedures performed by very low-volume surgeons resulted in worse postoperative outcomes and greater lengths of stay. Although the percentage of very low-volume surgeons declined from 2000 to 2014, it remains concerning, given ready access to higher-volume surgeons. Future research is needed to understand the existence of this practice pattern in other surgical fields. Efforts to eliminate this practice pattern are warranted to ensure high-quality care for all patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28514469      PMCID: PMC5710501          DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.1100

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Surg        ISSN: 2168-6254            Impact factor:   14.766


  36 in total

1.  Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States.

Authors:  John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-04-11       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Impact of hospital volume on racial disparities in cardiovascular procedure mortality.

Authors:  Amal N Trivedi; Thomas D Sequist; John Z Ayanian
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2006-01-17       Impact factor: 24.094

Review 3.  A systematic review of the impact of volume of surgery and specialization on patient outcome.

Authors:  M M Chowdhury; H Dagash; A Pierro
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 6.939

4.  Variation in carotid endarterectomy mortality in the Medicare population: trial hospitals, volume, and patient characteristics.

Authors:  D E Wennberg; F L Lucas; J D Birkmeyer; C E Bredenberg; E S Fisher
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998 Apr 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Infrequent physician use of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators risks patient safety.

Authors:  Stephen Lyman; Art Sedrakyan; Huong Do; Renee Razzano; Alvin I Mushlin
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 5.994

6.  The impact of surgical specialty on outcomes for carotid endarterectomy.

Authors:  Christopher S Hollenbeak; Adam R Bowman; Robert E Harbaugh; Paul N Casale; David Han
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2008-05-12       Impact factor: 2.192

7.  National trends in carotid artery revascularization surgery.

Authors:  Travis M Dumont; Anand I Rughani
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2012-04-06       Impact factor: 5.115

8.  Surgeon volume as an indicator of outcomes after carotid endarterectomy: an effect independent of specialty practice and hospital volume.

Authors:  John A Cowan; Justin B Dimick; B Gregory Thompson; James C Stanley; Gilbert R Upchurch
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 6.113

9.  Analysis of Florida and New York state hospital discharges suggests that carotid stenting in symptomatic women is associated with significant increase in mortality and perioperative morbidity compared with carotid endarterectomy.

Authors:  Ageliki G Vouyouka; Natalia N Egorova; Eugene A Sosunov; Alan J Moskowitz; Annetine Gelijns; Michael Marin; Peter L Faries
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2012-05-12       Impact factor: 4.268

10.  Perioperative outcomes after open and endovascular repair of intact abdominal aortic aneurysms in the United States during 2001.

Authors:  W Anthony Lee; Jeffrey W Carter; Gilbert Upchurch; James M Seeger; Thomas S Huber
Journal:  J Vasc Surg       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.268

View more
  6 in total

1.  Changes in Surgical Volume and Outcomes Over Time for Women Undergoing Hysterectomy for Endometrial Cancer.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; Maria P Ruiz; Ling Chen; Lisa R Gabor; Ana I Tergas; Caryn M St Clair; June Y Hou; Cande V Ananth; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 7.661

2.  Development of comorbidity score for patients undergoing major surgery.

Authors:  Hemalkumar B Mehta; Shan Yong; Sneha D Sura; Byron D Hughes; Yong-Fang Kuo; Stephen B Williams; Douglas S Tyler; Taylor S Riall; James S Goodwin
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 3.402

3.  Use of an Assistant Surgeon Does not Mitigate the Effect of Lead Surgeon Volume on Outcomes Following Open Repair of Intact Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms.

Authors:  Sarah E Deery; Thomas F X O'Donnell; Sara L Zettervall; Jeremy D Darling; Katie E Shean; A James O'Malley; Bruce E Landon; Marc L Schermerhorn
Journal:  Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg       Date:  2018-03-31       Impact factor: 7.069

4.  Unplanned Hospital Encounters After Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in 3 Large North American States.

Authors:  Robert J Huang; Monique T Barakat; Mohit Girotra; Jennifer S Lee; Subhas Banerjee
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2018-09-19       Impact factor: 22.682

5.  Effect of Minimum-Volume Standards on Patient Outcomes and Surgical Practice Patterns for Hysterectomy.

Authors:  Maria P Ruiz; Ling Chen; June Y Hou; Ana I Tergas; Caryn M St Clair; Cande V Ananth; Alfred I Neugut; Dawn L Hershman; Jason D Wright
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 7.661

6.  Learning Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery Manual Skills: An Institutional Experience With Remote Coaching and Assessment.

Authors:  Shana Miles; Nicole Donnellan
Journal:  Mil Med       Date:  2021-04-28       Impact factor: 1.437

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.