• Online Features  This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (28)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Quality of Care  • Quality of Care, Other  • Surgery  • Surgical Interventions  • Gastrointestinal/ Upper Foregut  • Thoracic Surgery  • Prognosis/ Outcomes  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

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.

CiteULike    Connotea    Delicious    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The Influence of Surgeon Specialty on Outcomes in General Thoracic Surgery: A National Sample 1996 to 2005
Schipper et al.
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2009;88:1566-1573.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Association Between Hospital-Reported Leapfrog Safe Practices Scores and Inpatient Mortality
Kernisan et al.
JAMA 2009;301:1341-1348.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Predictors of major morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database risk adjustment model.
Wright et al.
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2009;137:587-595.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Esophagectomy volume threshold as a criterion for centers of excellence: causation or cause, strategy or strategem?
Rice and Blackstone
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2009;137:10-12.
FULL TEXT  

Measuring the Quality of Surgical Outcomes in General Thoracic Surgery: Should Surgical Volume Be Used to Direct Patient Referrals?
Kozower et al.
Ann. Thorac. Surg. 2008;86:1405-1408.
FULL TEXT