Suppr超能文献

医院手术量与高危手术的抢救失败。

Hospital volume and failure to rescue with high-risk surgery.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.

出版信息

Med Care. 2011 Dec;49(12):1076-81. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182329b97.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Although the relationship between surgical volume and mortality is well established, the mechanisms underlying these associations remain uncertain. We sought to determine whether increased mortality at low-volume centers was due to higher complication rates or less success in rescuing patients from complications.

METHODS

Using 2005 to 2007 Medicare data, we identified patients undergoing 3 high-risk cancer operations: gastrectomy, pancreatectomy, and esophagectomy. We first ranked hospitals according to their procedural volume for these operations and divided them into 5 equal groups (quintiles) based on procedure volume cutoffs that most closely resulted in an equal distribution of patients through the quintiles. We then compared the incidence of major complications and "failure to rescue" (ie, case fatality among patients with complications) across hospital quintiles. We performed this analysis for all operations combined and for each operation individually.

RESULTS

With all 3 operations combined, failure to rescue had a much stronger relationship to hospital volume than postoperative complications. Very low-volume (lowest quintile) hospitals had only slightly higher complications rates (42.7% vs. 38.9%; odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.33), but markedly higher failure-to-rescue rates (30.3% vs. 13.1%; odds ratio 2.89, 95% confidence interval, 2.40-3.48) compared with very high-volume hospitals (highest quintile). These relationships also held true for individual operations. For example, patients undergoing pancreatectomy at very low-volume hospitals were 1.7 times more likely to have a major complication than those at very high-volume hospitals (38.3% vs. 27.7%, P<0.05), but 3.2 times more likely to die once those complications had occurred (26.0% vs. 9.9%, P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in mortality between high and low-volume hospitals are not associated with large differences in complication rates. Instead, these differences seem to be associated with the ability of a hospital to effectively rescue patients from complications. Strategies focusing on the timely recognition and management of complications once they occur may be essential to improving outcomes at low-volume hospitals.

摘要

介绍

虽然手术量与死亡率之间的关系已得到充分证实,但这些关联的机制仍不确定。我们试图确定低容量中心死亡率升高是否是由于并发症发生率较高,还是由于在从并发症中抢救患者方面的成功率较低所致。

方法

使用 2005 年至 2007 年的 Medicare 数据,我们确定了接受 3 种高危癌症手术的患者:胃切除术,胰切除术和食管切除术。我们首先根据这些手术的程序量对医院进行排名,并根据程序量截止值将其分为 5 个相等的组(五分位数),该截止值最接近通过五分位数均匀分布患者。然后,我们比较了医院五分位数之间的主要并发症和“抢救失败”(即,有并发症的患者的病死率)的发生率。我们对所有手术和每种手术分别进行了此分析。

结果

对于所有 3 种手术,抢救失败与医院容量的关系比术后并发症要强得多。极低容量(最低五分位数)的医院并发症发生率仅略高(42.7%对 38.9%;优势比 1.17,95%置信区间,1.02-1.33),但抢救失败的比例却明显较高(30.3%对 13.1%;优势比 2.89,95%置信区间,2.40-3.48),而与高容量医院(最高五分位数)相比。这些关系也适用于单个手术。例如,在极低容量医院接受胰切除术的患者发生重大并发症的可能性是在高容量医院接受手术的患者的 1.7 倍(38.3%对 27.7%,P<0.05),但一旦发生这些并发症,他们死亡的可能性就高出 3.2 倍(26.0%对 9.9%,P<0.05)。

结论

高容量和低容量医院之间的死亡率差异与并发症发生率的巨大差异无关。相反,这些差异似乎与医院有效抢救患者的能力有关。专注于一旦发生并发症就及时识别和处理并发症的策略对于改善低容量医院的预后可能至关重要。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验