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.

暂无摘要。

The traditional model of centralisation of care, whilst having many advantages, also requires adaptation and upscaling to meet the requirements of both regional areas and the increasing urban sprawl. However, to ensure comparable outcomes with current major centres, this transition, when required, must be delivered in a safe and effective manner. Our project, which utilised the British Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (BAOMS) recently published outcome data from the Quality and Outcomes in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery (QOMS) project to benchmark data prospectively collected from a small-volume, emerging centre in Northern Queensland, was the first of its kind in terms of validation studies. As expected, the small volume of our centre impacted the ability to derive powerful statistical models and comparators, an intrinsic limitation for small-volume centres whilst they are developing services. However, during this evolution project, the use of comparison metrics allowed for the detection of alert and alarm levels, which are invaluable to ensure patient safety and quality of outcome.Our paper demonstrated that, irrespective of size or volume, the utilisation of quality assurance metrics (national or international) provides for the safe and transparent upscaling of head and neck services in emerging, regional, and small-volume centres.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between hospital volume and surgical mortality is well documented. However, complete centralization of surgical care is not always feasible. The present study investigates how overall volume of upper gastrointestinal surgery at hospitals influences patient outcomes following resection for gastric adenocarcinoma.
METHODS: National Cancer Database (2010-2019) patients with pathologic stage 1-3 gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent gastrectomy were identified. Three cohorts were created: low-volume hospitals (LVH) for both gastrectomy and overall upper gastrointestinal operations, mixed-volume hospital (MVH) for low-volume gastrectomy but high-volume overall upper gastrointestinal operations, and high-volume gastrectomy hospitals (HVH). Chi-squared tests were used to analyze sociodemographic factors and surgical outcomes and Kaplan-Meier method for survival analysis.
RESULTS: In total, 26,398 patients were identified (LVH: 20,099; MVH: 539; HVH: 5,760). The 5-year survival was equivalent between MVH and HVH for all stages of disease (MVH: 56.0%, HVH 55.6%; p = 0.9866) and when stratified into early (MVH: 69.9%, HVH: 65.4%; p = 0.1998) and late stages (MVH: 24.7%, HVH: 32.0%; p = 0.1480), while LVH had worse survival. After matching patients, postoperative outcomes were worse for LVH, but there was no difference between MVH and HVH in terms of adequate lymphadenectomy, margin status, readmission rates, and 90-day mortality rates.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite lower gastrectomy volume for cancer, postoperative gastrectomy outcomes at centers that perform a high number of upper gastrointestinal cancer surgeries were similar to hospitals with high gastrectomy volume. These hospitals offer a blueprint for providing equivalent outcomes to high volume centers while enhancing availability of quality cancer care.

暂无摘要。

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.

OBJECTIVE: Despite lacking clinical data, the Dutch government is considering increasing the minimum annual surgical volume per center from twenty to fifty cytoreductive surgeries (CRS) for advanced-stage ovarian cancer (OC). This study aims to evaluate whether this increase is warranted.
METHODS: This population-based study included all CRS for FIGO-stage IIB-IVB OC registered in eighteen Dutch hospitals between 2019 and 2022. Short-term outcomes included result of CRS, length of stay, severe complications, 30-day mortality, time to adjuvant chemotherapy, and textbook outcome. Patients were stratified by annual volume: low-volume (nine hospitals, <25), medium-volume (four hospitals, 29-37), and high-volume (five hospitals, 54-84). Descriptive statistics and multilevel logistic regressions were used to assess the (case-mix adjusted) associations of surgical volume and outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 1646 interval CRS (iCRS) and 789 primary CRS (pCRS) were included. No associations were found between surgical volume and different outcomes in the iCRS cohort. In the pCRS cohort, high-volume was associated with increased complete CRS rates (aOR 1.9, 95%-CI 1.2-3.1, p = 0.010). Furthermore, high-volume was associated with increased severe complication rates (aOR 2.3, 1.1-4.6, 95%-CI 1.3-4.2, p = 0.022) and prolonged length of stay (aOR 2.3, 95%-CI 1.3-4.2, p = 0.005). 30-day mortality, time to adjuvant chemotherapy, and textbook outcome were not associated with surgical volume in the pCRS cohort. Subgroup analyses (FIGO-stage IIIC-IVB) showed similar results. Various case-mix factors significantly impacted outcomes, warranting case-mix adjustment.
CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses do not support further centralization of iCRS for advanced-stage OC. High-volume was associated with higher complete pCRS, suggesting either a more accurate selection in these hospitals or a more aggressive approach. The higher completeness rates were at the expense of higher severe complications and prolonged admissions.

BACKGROUND: Although correlation between center volume and survival has been reported for several complex cancers, it remains unknown if this is true for colorectal neuroendocrine carcinomas (CRNECs). We hypothesized that higher center annual volume of colorectal neuroendocrine neoplasm resections would be associated with overall survival (OS) for patients with CRNECs.
METHODS: Patients in the National Cancer Database diagnosed with stages I-III CRNEC between 2006 and 2018 and who underwent surgical resection were identified. The mean annual colorectal neuroendocrine neoplasm resection volume threshold associated with significantly worse mortality hazard was determined using restricted cubic splines. Kaplan-Meier (KM) method was used to compare OS, while Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariable analysis.
RESULTS: There were 694 patients with CRNEC who met inclusion criteria across 1229 centers. Based on the cubic spline, centers treating fewer than one colorectal neuroendocrine neoplasm patient every 3 years on average had worse outcomes. Centers below this threshold were classified as low-volume (LV) centers corresponding with 42% of centers and about 15% of the patient cohort. In unadjusted survival analysis, LV patients had a median OS of 14 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10-19) while those treated at HV centers had a median OS of 33 months (95% CI: 25-49). In multivariable analysis, resection at a LV center was associated with increased risk of mortality (1.42 [95% CI: 1.01-2.00], p = 0.04).
CONCLUSIONS: CRNEC patients have a dire prognosis; however, treatment at an HV center may be associated with decreased risk of mortality.