Katherine L Bailey1, Peter Downey1, Yas Sanaiha1, Esteban Aguayo1, Young-Ji Seo1, Richard J Shemin1, Peyman Benharash2. 1. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories (CORELAB), David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. 2. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Cardiovascular Outcomes Research Laboratories (CORELAB), David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California. Electronic address: Pbenharash@mednet.ucla.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has emerged as a common therapy for severe cardiopulmonary dysfunction. We aimed to describe the relationship of institutional volume with patient outcomes and examine transfer status to tertiary ECMO centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample, we identified adult patients who received ECMO from 2008 to 2014. Individual hospital volume was calculated as tertiles of total institutional discharges for each year independently. RESULTS: Of the total 18,684 adult patients placed on ECMO, 2548 (13.6%), 5278 (28.2%), and 10,858 (58.1%) patients were admitted to low-, medium-, and high-volume centers, respectively. Unadjusted mortality at low-volume hospitals was less than that of medium- (43.7% versus 50.3%, P = 0.03) and high-volume hospitals (43.7% versus 55.6%, P < 0.001). Length of stay and cost were reduced at low-volume hospitals compared to both medium- and large-volume institutions (all P < 0.001). In high-volume institutions, transferred patients had greater postpropensity-matched mortality (58.5% versus 53.7%, P = 0.05) and cost ($190,299 versus $168,970, P = 0.009) compared to direct admissions. On exclusion of transferred patients from propensity analysis, mortality remained greater in high-volume compared to low-volume centers (50.2% versus 42.8%, P = 0.04). Predictors of mortality included treatment at high-volume centers, respiratory failure, and cardiogenic shock (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show increased in-hospital mortality in high-volume institutions and in patients transferred to tertiary centers. Whether this phenomenon represents selection bias or transfer from another facility deserves further investigation and will aid with the identification of surrogate markers for quality of high-risk interventions.
BACKGROUND: The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has emerged as a common therapy for severe cardiopulmonary dysfunction. We aimed to describe the relationship of institutional volume with patient outcomes and examine transfer status to tertiary ECMO centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the National Inpatient Sample, we identified adult patients who received ECMO from 2008 to 2014. Individual hospital volume was calculated as tertiles of total institutional discharges for each year independently. RESULTS: Of the total 18,684 adult patients placed on ECMO, 2548 (13.6%), 5278 (28.2%), and 10,858 (58.1%) patients were admitted to low-, medium-, and high-volume centers, respectively. Unadjusted mortality at low-volume hospitals was less than that of medium- (43.7% versus 50.3%, P = 0.03) and high-volume hospitals (43.7% versus 55.6%, P < 0.001). Length of stay and cost were reduced at low-volume hospitals compared to both medium- and large-volume institutions (all P < 0.001). In high-volume institutions, transferred patients had greater postpropensity-matched mortality (58.5% versus 53.7%, P = 0.05) and cost ($190,299 versus $168,970, P = 0.009) compared to direct admissions. On exclusion of transferred patients from propensity analysis, mortality remained greater in high-volume compared to low-volume centers (50.2% versus 42.8%, P = 0.04). Predictors of mortality included treatment at high-volume centers, respiratory failure, and cardiogenic shock (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show increased in-hospital mortality in high-volume institutions and in patients transferred to tertiary centers. Whether this phenomenon represents selection bias or transfer from another facility deserves further investigation and will aid with the identification of surrogate markers for quality of high-risk interventions.
Authors: Rie Sakai-Bizmark; Laurie A Mena; Hiraku Kumamaru; Ichiro Kawachi; Emily H Marr; Eliza J Webber; Hyun H Seo; Scott I M Friedlander; Ruey-Kang R Chang Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2019-03-27 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Pauline Yeung Ng; April Ip; Shu Fang; Jeremy Chang Rang Lin; Lowell Ling; Kai Man Chan; Kit Hung Anne Leung; King Chung Kenny Chan; Dominic So; Hoi Ping Shum; Chun Wai Ngai; Wai Ming Chan; Wai Ching Sin Journal: J Thorac Dis Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 3.005
Authors: Justyna Swol; Daniel Brodie; Anne Willers; Bishoy Zakhary; Joseph Belezzo; Zachary Shinar; Scott D Weingart; Jonathan W Haft; Roberto Lorusso; Giles J Peek Journal: Artif Organs Date: 2021-11-05 Impact factor: 2.663
Authors: Peter Moritz Becher; Alina Goßling; Benedikt Schrage; Raphael Twerenbold; Nina Fluschnik; Moritz Seiffert; Alexander M Bernhardt; Hermann Reichenspurner; Stefan Blankenberg; Dirk Westermann Journal: Crit Care Date: 2020-06-05 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: J W Awori Hayanga; Jonathan Aboagye; Errol Bush; Joseph Canner; Heather K Hayanga; Alyssa Klingbeil; Paul McCarthy; James Fugett; Ghulam Abbas; Vinay Badhwar Journal: JTCVS Open Date: 2020-03-06