Dataset Information

High-volume versus low-volume for esophageal resections for cancer: the essential role of case-mix adjustments based on clinical data.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Most studies addressing the volume-outcome relationship in complex surgical procedures use hospital mortality as the sole outcome measure and are rarely based on detailed clinical data. The lack of reliable information about comorbidities and tumor stages makes the conclusions of these studies debatable. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes for esophageal resections for cancer in low- versus high-volume hospitals, using an extensive set of variables concerning case-mix and outcome measures, including long-term survival. METHODS: Clinical data, from 903 esophageal resections performed between January 1990 and December 1999, were retrieved from the original patients' files. Three hundred and forty-two patients were operated on in 11 low-volume hospitals (<7 resections/year) and 561 in a single high-volume center. RESULTS: Mortality and morbidity rates were significantly lower in the high-volume center, which had an in-hospital mortality of 5 vs 13% (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, hospital volume, but also the presence of comorbidity proved to be strong prognostic factors predicting in-hospital mortality (ORs 3.05 and 2.34). For stage I and II disease, there was a significantly better 5-year survival in the high-volume center. (P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital volume and comorbidity patterns are important determinants of outcome in esophageal cancer surgery. Strong clinical endpoints such as in-hospital mortality and survival can be used as performance indicators, only if they are joined by reliable case-mix information.

SUBMITTER: Wouters MW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2190337 | biostudies-other | 2008 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Kidney transplantation is the optimal treatment for patients with end-stage renal disease; however, long-term outcomes remain suboptimal. Objective:The objectives of our study were to examine the variation in survival rates and determine whether center volume and case mix are associated with transplant outcomes and explain the variation across kidney transplant centers in Ontario, Canada. Design:This was a population-based cohort study using health care administrative databases. Setting:A total of 5 transplant centers across Ontario, Canada. Patients:We included adults (?18 years) undergoing primary, solitary kidney transplantation between January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2013. Measurements:The co-primary outcomes were death-censored graft loss and total mortality. Methods:Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess potential associations and describe variation, using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each center relative to the average across all centers. Results:The study cohort included 5037 patients followed for a median of 5.3 years, interquartile range (2.7-8.6). In multivariable models, recipient age, body mass index, Charlson Index, time on dialysis, donor type, and age were found to be significantly associated with death-censored graft loss, and recipient age and sex, Charlson Index, time on dialysis, donor age, and time era of transplant were associated with total mortality. There was statistically significant variation across centers observed for death-censored graft loss (P = .04) with HRs ranging from 0.72 to 1.22. However, neither adjusting for case mix nor center volume meaningfully changed the HRs reflecting each center-specific effect. There was a tendency toward reduced risk of graft loss (HR, per additional 25 patients, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.78-1.04]) in centers with higher volumes. For total mortality, there was statistically significant variation across centers with HRs ranging from 0.82 to 1.13 (P = .04); however, neither adjusting for case mix or center volume meaningfully changed the HRs. Center volume was not significantly associated with total mortality (HR, per additional 25 patients, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.90-1.20]). Limitations:This study was limited by the small number of centers included. Conclusions:Outcomes differ across the 5 transplant centers in Ontario. We did not find any strong support for our hypotheses that case mix or center volume is responsible for these differences.

Project description:BackgroundMechanical ventilation is a resource intensive organ support treatment, and historical studies from low-resource settings had reported a high mortality. We aimed to study the outcomes in patients receiving mechanical ventilation in a contemporary low-resource setting.MethodsWe prospectively studied the characteristics and outcomes (disease-related, mechanical ventilation-related, and process of care-related) in 237 adults mechanically ventilated for a medical illness at a teaching hospital in southern India during February 2011 to August 2012. Vital status of patients discharged from hospital was ascertained on Day 90 or later.ResultsMean age of the patients was 40 ± 17 years; 140 (51%) were men. Poisoning and envenomation accounted for 98 (41%) of 237 admissions. In total, 87 (37%) patients died in-hospital; 16 (7%) died after discharge; 115 (49%) were alive at 90-day assessment; and 19 (8%) were lost to follow-up. Weaning was attempted in 171 (72%) patients; most patients (78 of 99 [79%]) failing the first attempt could be weaned off. Prolonged mechanical ventilation was required in 20 (8%) patients. Adherence to head-end elevation and deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis were 164 (69%) and 147 (62%) respectively. Risk of nosocomial infections particularly ventilator-associated pneumonia was high (57.2 per 1,000 ventilator-days). Higher APACHE II score quartiles (adjusted HR [95% CI] quartile 2, 2.65 [1.19-5.89]; quartile 3, 2.98 [1.24-7.15]; quartile 4, 5.78 [2.45-13.60]), and new-onset organ failure (2.98 [1.94-4.56]) were independently associated with the risk of death. Patients with poisoning had higher risk of reintubation (43% vs. 20%; P = 0.001) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (75% vs. 53%; P = 0.001). But, their mortality was significantly lower compared to the rest (24% vs. 44%; P = 0.002).ConclusionsThe case-mix considerably differs from other settings. Mortality in this low-resource setting is similar to high-resource settings. But, further improvements in care processes and prevention of nosocomial infections are required.

Project description:BackgroundCase-mix adjustment of patient reported experiences (PREMs) and outcomes (PROMs) of care are meant to enable fair comparison between units (e.g. care providers or countries) and to show where improvement is possible. It is important to distinguish between fair comparison and improvement potential, as case-mix adjustment may mask improvement potential. Case-mix adjustment takes into account the effect of patient characteristics that are related to the PREMs and PROMs studied, but are outside the sphere of influence of the units being compared. We developed an approach to assess which patient characteristics would qualify as case-mix adjusters, using data from an international primary care study.ResultsWe used multilevel analysis, with patients nested in general practices nested in countries. Case-mix adjustment is indicated under the following conditions: there is a main effect of the potential case-mix adjuster on the PREM/PROM; this effect does not vary between units; and the distribution of the potential case-mix adjuster differs between units. Random slope models were used to assess whether the impact of a potential case-mix adjuster varied between units. To assess whether a slope variance is big enough to decide that case-mix adjustment is not indicated, we compared the variances in the categories of a potential case-mix adjuster. Significance of the slope variance is not enough, because small variances may be significantly different from zero when numbers are large. We therefore need an additional criterion to consider a slope variance as important. Borrowing from the idea of a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) we proposed a difference between the variances of 0.25*variance (equivalent to a medium effect size). We applied this approach to data from the QUALICOPC (Quality and costs of primary care in Europe) study.ConclusionsOur approach provides guidance to decide whether or not patient characteristics should be considered as case-mix adjusters. The criterion of a difference between variances of 0.25*variance works well for continuous PREMs and PROMs, but seems to be too strict for binary PREMs and PROMs. Without additional information, it is not possible to decide whether important slope variation is the result of either differences in performance between general practices or countries, or cultural differences.

Dataset Information

High-volume versus low-volume for esophageal resections for cancer: the essential role of case-mix adjustments based on clinical data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets