You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 142 No. 9, September 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Paper
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Quality of Care, Other
 •Gastrointestinal/ Upper Foregut
 •Thoracic Surgery
 •Prognosis/ Outcomes
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Case Volume as a Predictor of Inpatient Mortality After Esophagectomy

Michael Rodgers, MD; Blair A. Jobe, MD; Robert W. O’Rourke, MD; Brett Sheppard, MD; Brian Diggs, PhD; John G. Hunter, MD

Arch Surg. 2007;142:829-839.

Hypothesis  Volume criteria are poor predictors of inpatient mortality after esophagectomy. Because many factors influence mortality for complex procedures, this study was designed to quantify such factors and analyze the volume-outcome relationship for esophagectomy.

Design  Retrospective review of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database for esophagectomies. We performed multivariate analysis to identify patient and institution risk factors for death and, by using all reported volume thresholds, calculated the probability of choosing a provider with a low mortality.

Patients and Setting  Patients undergoing esophagectomy between January 1, 1988, and December 31, 2000, included in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database.

Main Outcome Measure  Inpatient mortality.

Results  We identified 8075 cases of esophagectomy; 3243 had complete data sets. The national average mortality rate was 11.4%. Independent risk factors for mortality included comorbidity, age (> 65 years), female sex, race, and surgeon volume. Choosing a surgeon or hospital on the basis of a particular volume threshold had a modest influence on the probability of that provider having a low mortality. A low-volume hospital (defined by the Leapfrog Group criterion as < 13 cases per year) had a probability of 61% of having a mortality of less than 10%, whereas a high-volume hospital had a probability of 68%.

Conclusions  Patient factors have a greater influence on inpatient mortality than case volume does. Although there is generally an inverse relationship between case volume and mortality, there is wide scatter between individual surgeons and hospitals, with a complex volume-outcome relationship. Using volume criteria alone to choose a provider may in some instances increase the risk of mortality.


Author Affiliations: Department of Surgery, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.







HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2007 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.