BACKGROUND: It is important to understand the outcomes of adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) patients at different facilities as treatment paradigms change.
OBJECTIVE: Our primary objective was to determine adult ALL overall survival (OS) by facility volume and type. Secondary objectives included identifying sociodemographic factors that may have impacted outcomes and analyzing treatment patterns by facility volume and type.
METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of the National Cancer Database (NCDB) that included patients ≥40 years diagnosed with ALL between 2004 and 2016.
RESULTS: A total of 14 593 patients were included in this study. Univariate OS was greatest at low volume (LV) and community programs (CPs) and the least at high volume (HV) and academic programs (AP). This difference was lost after multivariable Cox proportional hazards model analysis, which found no difference in survival by facility volume or type, however, survival was significantly influenced by age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, insurance, and residence location (p < 0.05). Patients treated at HV and APs compared to LV and CP received more anti-neoplastic directed therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest treatment facility volume and type do not impact older adult ALL patient (≥40 years) survival, however confounding sociodemographic differences do impact survival outcomes, despite more aggressive and novel treatment approaches provided at HV and APs.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of outcome reporting after elective visceral surgery in a low volume district hospital. Outcome measurement as well as transparent reporting of surgical complications becomes more and more important. In the future, financial and personal resources may be distributed due to reported quality and thus, it is in the main interest of healthcare providers that outcome data are accurately collected. Between 10/2020 and 09/2021 postoperative complications during the hospitalisation were recorded using the Clavien-Dindo classification (CDC) and comprehensive complication index by residents of a surgical department in a district hospital. After one year of prospective data collection, data were retrospectively analyzed and re-evaluated for accuracy by senior consultant surgeons. In 575 patients undergoing elective general or visceral surgery interns and residents reported an overall rate of patients with complications of 7.3% (n = 42) during the hospitalization phase, whereas a rate of 18.3% (n = 105) was revealed after retrospective analysis by senior consultant surgeons. Thus, residents failed to report patients with postoperative complications in 60% of cases (63/105). In the 42 cases, in which complications were initially reported, the grading of complications was correct only in 33.3% of cases (n = 14). Complication grades that were most missed were CDC grade I and II. Quality of outcome measurement in a district hospital is poor if done by unexperienced residents and significantly underestimates the true complication rate. Outcome measurement must be done or supervised by experienced surgeons to ensure correct and reliable outcome data.

OBJECTIVE: Whether hospital volume affects outcome of patients undergoing hepatobiliary surgery, and whether the centralization of such procedures is justified remains to be investigated. The aim of this study was to analyze the outcome of liver surgery in Italy in relationship of hospital volume.
METHODS: This is a nationwide retrospective observational study conducted on data collected by the National Italian Registry \"Piano Nazionale Esiti\" (PNE) 2023 that included all liver procedures performed in 2022. Outcome measure were case volume and 30-day mortality. Hospitals were classified as very high-volume (H-Vol), intermediate-volume (I-Vol), low-volume (L-Vol) and very low-volume (VL-VoL). A review on centralization process and outcome measures was added.
RESULTS: 6,126 liver resections for liver tumors were performed in 327 hospitals in 2022. The 30-day mortality was 2.2%. There were 14 H-Vol, 19 I-Vol, 31 L-Vol and 263 VL-Vol hospitals with 30-day mortality of 1.7%, 2.2%, 2.6% and 3.6% respectively (P < 0.001); 220 centers (83%) performed less than 10 resections, and 78 (29%) centers only 1 resection in 2022. By considering the geographical macro-areas, the median count of liver resection performed in northern Italy exceeded those in central and southern Italy (57% vs. 23% vs. 20%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: High-volume has been confirmed to be associated to better outcome after hepatobiliary surgical procedures. Further studies are required to detail the factors associated with mortality. The centralization process should be redesigned and oversight.

UNASSIGNED: Procedure volumes are associated with outcomes for many cardiovascular procedures, leading to guidelines on minimum volume thresholds for certain procedures; however, the volume-outcome relationship with left atrial appendage occlusion is poorly understood. As such, we sought to determine the relationship between hospital and physician volume and WATCHMAN left atrial appendage occlusion procedural success overall and with the new generation WATCHMAN FLX device.
UNASSIGNED: We performed an analysis of WATCHMAN procedures (January 2019 to October 2021) from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry LAAO Registry. Three-level hierarchical generalized linear models were used to assess the adjusted relationship between procedure volume and procedural success (device released with peridevice leak <5 mm, no in-hospital major adverse events).
UNASSIGNED: Among 87 480 patients (76.2±8.0 years; 58.8% men; mean CHA2DS2-VASc score, 4.8±1.5) from 693 hospitals, the procedural success rate was 94.2%. With hospital volume Q4 (greatest volume) as the reference, the likelihood of procedural success was significantly less among Q1 (odds ratio [OR], 0.66 [CI, 0.57-0.77]) and Q2 (OR, 0.78 [CI, 0.69-0.90]) but not Q3 (OR, 0.95 [CI, 0.84-1.07]). With physician volume Q4 (greatest volume) as the reference, the likelihood of procedural success was significantly less among Q1 (OR, 0.72 [CI, 0.63-0.82]), Q2 (OR, 0.79 [CI, 0.71-0.89]), and Q3 (OR, 0.88 [CI, 0.79-0.97]). Among WATCHMAN FLX procedures, there was attenuation of the volume-outcome relationships, with statistically significant but modest absolute differences of only ≈1% across volume quartiles.
UNASSIGNED: In this contemporary national analysis, greater hospital and physician WATCHMAN volumes were associated with increased procedure success. The WATCHMAN FLX transition was associated with increased procedural success and less heterogeneity in outcomes across volume quartiles. These findings indicate the importance of understanding the volume-outcome relationship for individual left atrial appendage occlusion devices.

BACKGROUND: Literature regarding the impact of esophagectomy approach on hospitalizations costs and short-term outcomes is limited. Moreover, few have examined how institutional MIS experience affects costs. We thus examined utilization trends, costs, and short-term outcomes of open and minimally invasive (MIS) esophagectomy as well as assessing the relationship between institutional MIS volume and hospitalization costs.
METHODS: All adults undergoing elective esophagectomy were identified from the 2016-2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Multiple regression models were used to assess approach with costs, in-hospital mortality, and major complications. Additionally, annual hospital MIS esophagectomy volume was modeled as a restricted cubic spline against costs. Institutions performing > 16 cases/year corresponding with the inflection point were categorized as high-volume hospitals (HVH). We subsequently examined the association of HVH status with costs, in-hospital mortality, and major complications in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy.
RESULTS: Of an estimated 29,116 patients meeting inclusion, 10,876 (37.4%) underwent MIS esophagectomy. MIS approaches were associated with $10,600 in increased incremental costs (95% CI 8,800-12,500), but lower odds of in-hospital mortality (AOR 0.76; 95% CI 0.61-0.96) or major complications (AOR 0.68; 95% CI 0.60, 0.77). Moreover, HVH status was associated with decreased adjusted costs, as well as lower odds of postoperative complications for patients undergoing MIS operations.
CONCLUSIONS: In this nationwide study, MIS esophagectomy was associated with increased hospitalization costs, but improved short-term outcomes. In MIS operations, cost differences were mitigated by volume, as HVH status was linked with decreased costs in the setting of decreased odds of complications. Centralization of care to HVH centers should be considered as MIS approaches are increasingly utilized.

BACKGROUND: Centralization of hepatopancreatobiliary procedures to more experienced centers has been recommended but remains controversial. Hospital volume and risk-stratified mortality rates (RSMR) are metrics for interhospital comparison. We compared facility operative volume with facility RSMR as a proxy for hospital quality.
METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery for liver (LC), biliary tract (BTC), and pancreatic (PDAC) cancer were identified in the National Cancer Database (2004-2018). Hierarchical logistic regression was used to create facility-specific models for RSMR. Volume (high versus low) was determined by quintile. Performance (high versus low) was determined by RSMR tercile. Primary outcomes included median facility RSMR and RSMR distributions. Volume- and RSMR-based redistribution was simulated and compared for reductions in 90-day mortality.
RESULTS: A total of 106,217 patients treated at 1282 facilities were included; 17,695 had LC, 23,075 had BTC, and 65,447 had PDAC. High-volume centers (HVC) had lower RSMR compared with medium-volume centers and low-volume centers for LC, BTC, and PDAC (all p < 0.001). High-performance centers (HPC) had lower RSMR compared with medium-performance centers and low-performance centers for LC, BTC, and PDAC (all p < 0.001). Volume-based redistribution required 16.0 patients for LC, 11.2 for BTC, and 14.9 for PDAC reassigned to 15, 22, and 20 centers, respectively, per life saved within each US census region. RSMR-based redistribution required 4.7 patients for LC, 4.2 for BTC, and 4.9 for PDAC reassigned to 316, 403, and 418 centers, respectively, per life saved within each US census region.
CONCLUSIONS: HVC and HPC have the lowest overall and risk-standardized 90-day mortality after oncologic hepatopancreatobiliary procedures, but RSMR may outperform volume as a measure of hospital quality.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative mortality plays an important role in evaluating the surgical safety of esophagectomy. Although postoperative mortality after esophagectomy is partly influenced by the yearly hospital surgical case volume (hospital volume), this association remains unclear.
METHODS: Studies assessing the association between hospital volume and postoperative mortality in patients who underwent esophagectomy for esophageal cancer were searched for eligibility. Odds ratios were pooled for the highest versus lowest categories of hospital volume using a random effects model. The dose-response association between hospital volume and the risk of postoperative mortality was analyzed. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO.
RESULTS: Fifty-six studies including 385 469 participants were included. A higher-volume hospital significantly reduced the risk of postesophagectomy mortality by 53% compared with their lower-volume counterparts (odds ratio, 0.47; 95% CI: 0.42-0.53). Similar results were found in subgroup analyses. Volume-outcome analysis suggested that postesophagectomy mortality rates remained roughly stable after the hospital volume reached a plateau of 45 esophagectomies per year.
CONCLUSIONS: Higher-volume hospitals had significantly lower postesophagectomy mortality rates in patients with esophageal cancer, with a threshold of 45 esophagectomies per year for a high-volume hospital. This remarkable negative correlation showed the benefit of a better safety in centralization of esophagectomy to a high-volume hospital.

UNASSIGNED: Minimum volume standards have been advocated as a strategy to improve outcomes for certain surgical procedures. Hospital networks could avoid low-volume surgery by consolidating cases within network hospitals that meet volume standards, thus optimizing outcomes while retaining cases and revenue. The rates of compliance with volume standards among hospital networks and the association of volume standards with outcomes at these hospitals remain unknown.
UNASSIGNED: To quantify low-volume surgery and associated outcomes within hospital networks.
UNASSIGNED: This cross-sectional study used Medicare Provider Analysis and Review data to examine fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 66 to 99 years who underwent 1 of 10 elective surgical procedures (abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, carotid endarterectomy, mitral valve repair, hip or knee replacement, bariatric surgery, or resection for lung, esophageal, pancreatic, or rectal cancers) in a network hospital from 2016 to 2018. Hospital volume for each procedure (calculated with the use of the National Inpatient Sample) was compared with yearly hospital volume standards for that procedure recommended by The Leapfrog Group. Networks were then categorized into 4 groups according to whether or not that hospital or another hospital in the network met low-volume standards for that procedure. Data were analyzed from February to June 2023.
UNASSIGNED: Receipt of surgery in a low-volume hospital within a network.
UNASSIGNED: Primary outcomes were postoperative complications, 30-day readmission, and 30-day mortality, stratified by the volume status of the hospital and network type. The secondary outcome was the availability of a different high-volume hospital within the same network or outside the network and its proximity to the patient (based on hospital referral region and zip code).
UNASSIGNED: In all, data were analyzed for 950 079 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries (mean [SD] age, 74.4 [6.5] years; 621 138 females [59.2%] and 427 931 males [40.8%]) who underwent 1 049 069 procedures at 2469 hospitals within 382 networks. Of these networks, 380 (99.5%) had at least 1 low-volume hospital performing the elective procedure of interest. In 35 137 of 44 011 procedures (79.8%) that were performed at low-volume hospitals, there was a hospital that met volume standards within the same network and hospital referral region located a median (IQR) distance of 29 (12-60) miles from the patient\'s home. Across hospital networks, there was 43-fold variation in rates of low-volume surgery among the procedures studied (from 1.5% of carotid endarterectomies to 65.0% of esophagectomies). In adjusted analyses, postoperative outcomes were inferior at low-volume hospitals compared with hospitals meeting volume standards, with a 30-day mortality of 8.1% at low-volume hospitals vs 5.5% at hospitals that met volume standards (adjusted odds ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.61-0.73]; P < .001).
UNASSIGNED: Findings of this study suggest that most US hospital networks had hospitals performing low-volume surgery that is associated with inferior surgical outcomes despite availability of a different in-network hospital that met volume standards within a median of 29 miles for the vast majority of patients. Strategies are needed to help patients access high-quality care within their networks, including avoidance of elective surgery at low-volume hospitals. Avoidance of low-volume surgery could be considered a process measure that reflects attention to quality within hospital networks.