Pearce W H, Parker M A, Feinglass J, Ujiki M, Manheim L M
Division of Vascular Surgery, Institute for Health Services Research and Policy Studies, Northwestern University Medical School, Chicago, Ill., USA.
J Vasc Surg. 1999 May;29(5):768-76; discussion 777-8. doi: 10.1016/s0741-5214(99)70202-8.
Mortality and morbidity rates after vascular surgical procedures have been related to hospital volume. Hospitals in which greater volumes of vascular surgical procedures are performed tend to have statistically lower mortality rates than those hospitals in which fewer procedures are performed. Only a few studies have directly assessed the impact of the surgeon's volume on outcome. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to review a large state data set to determine the impact of surgeon volume on outcome after carotid endarterectomy (CEA), lower extremity bypass grafting (LEAB), and abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (AAA).
The Florida Agency for Health Care Administration state admission data from 1992 to 1996 were obtained. The data included all nonfederal hospital admissions. Frequencies were calculated from first-listed International Classification of Diseases-9 codes. Multiple logistic regression was used to test the significance on outcome of surgeon volume, American Board of Surgery certification for added qualifications in general vascular surgery, hospital size, hospital volume, patient age, and gender.
During this interval, there were 31,172 LEABs, 45,744 CEAs, and 13,415 AAAs performed. The in-hospital mortality rate increased with age. A doubling of surgeon volume was associated with a 4% reduction in risk for adverse outcome for CEA (P =.006), an 8% reduction for LEAB, and an 11% reduction for AAA ( P =.0002). However, although hospital volume was significant in predicting better outcomes for CEA and AAA procedures, it was not associated with better outcomes for LEAB. Certification for added qualifications in general vascular surgery was a significant predictor of better outcomes for CEA and AAA. Certified vascular surgeons had a 15% lower risk rate of death or complications after CEA (P =.002) and a 24% lower risk rate of a similar outcome after AAA (P =.009). However, for LEAB, certification was not significant.
Surgeon volume and certification are significantly related to better patient outcomes for patients who undergo CEA and AAA. In addition, surgeons with high volumes demonstrated consistently lower mortality and morbidity rates than did surgeons with low volumes. Hospital volume for a given procedure also is correlated with better outcomes.
血管外科手术后的死亡率和发病率与医院规模有关。进行大量血管外科手术的医院,其死亡率在统计学上往往低于手术量较少的医院。只有少数研究直接评估了外科医生手术量对手术结果的影响。因此,本研究的目的是回顾一个大型的州数据集,以确定外科医生手术量对颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA)、下肢搭桥术(LEAB)和腹主动脉瘤修复术(AAA)术后结果的影响。
获取了佛罗里达州医疗保健管理局1992年至1996年的州住院数据。数据包括所有非联邦医院的住院病例。根据首次列出的国际疾病分类第9版编码计算频率。采用多因素逻辑回归分析来检验外科医生手术量、美国外科委员会普通血管外科附加资格认证、医院规模、医院手术量、患者年龄和性别对手术结果的影响是否具有显著性。
在此期间,共进行了31172例LEAB手术、45744例CEA手术和13415例AAA手术。住院死亡率随年龄增长而增加。外科医生手术量翻倍与CEA不良结局风险降低4%相关(P = 0.006),LEAB降低8%,AAA降低11%(P = = 0.0002)。然而,虽然医院手术量在预测CEA和AAA手术的更好结果方面具有显著性,但与LEAB手术的更好结果无关。普通血管外科附加资格认证是CEA和AAA手术更好结果的重要预测因素。获得认证的血管外科医生CEA术后死亡或并发症风险率降低15%(P = 0.002),AAA术后类似结局风险率降低24%(P = 0.009)。然而,对于LEAB手术,认证并不显著。
外科医生手术量和认证与接受CEA和AAA手术患者的更好手术结果显著相关。此外,手术量大的外科医生的死亡率和发病率始终低于手术量小的外科医生。特定手术的医院手术量也与更好的结果相关。