In-hospital mortality after stomach cancer surgery in Spain and relationship with hospital volume of interventions.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus about the possible relation between in-hospital mortality in surgery for gastric cancer and the hospital annual volume of interventions. The objectives were to identify factors associated to greater in-hospital mortality for surgery in gastric cancer and to analyze the possible independent relation between hospital annual volume and in-hospital mortality. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients discharged after surgery for stomach cancer during 2001-2002 in four regions of Spain using the Minimum Basic Data Set for Hospital Discharges. The overall and specific in-hospital mortality rates were estimated according to patient and hospital characteristics. We adjusted a logistic regression model in order to calculate the in-hospital mortality according to hospital volume. RESULTS: There were 3241 discharges in 144 hospitals. In-hospital mortality was 10.3% (95% CI 9.3-11.4). A statistically significant relation was observed among age, type of admission, volume, and mortality, as well as diverse secondary diagnoses or the type of intervention. Hospital annual volume was associated to Charlson score, type of admission, region, length of stay and number of secondary diagnoses registered at discharge. In the adjusted model, increased age and urgent admission were associated to increased in-hospital mortality. Likewise, partial gastrectomy (Billroth I and II) and simple excision of lymphatic structure were associated with a lower probability of in-hospital mortality. No independent association was found between hospital volume and in-hospital mortality CONCLUSION: Despite the limitations of our study, our results corroborate the existence of patient, clinical, and intervention factors associated to greater hospital mortality, although we found no clear association between the volume of cases treated at a centre and hospital mortality.

An evaluation of morbidity and mortality in oncologic gastric surgery with the application of POSSUM, P-POSSUM, and O-POSSUM.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluation of surgical results observed in oncologic gastric surgery with reference to estimation of risks through POSSUM (Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enUmeration of Mortality and morbidity), P-POSSUM (Portsmouth POSSUM), and O-POSSUM (regression model based on the POSSUM and P-POSSUM, especially designed for gastric and esophagus surgery). METHODS: A prospective follow-up of a cohort of 106 consecutive patients, gastrectomized because of gastric cancer. The variables studied were: age, sex, technical surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, the Charlson comorbidity index, morbidity, and mortality. RESULTS: From January 2004 to April 2008, 131 patients were operated on for gastric neoplasia. Of these, 28 patients were excluded: 5 because of nonstandard gastrectomy, 17 because of staging laparoscopy or unresectable cancer after laparotomy, and 3 because of palliative gastroenteroanastomosis; 106 patients were included. We performed 38 total gastrectomies, 65 distal gastrectomies, 2 esophagogastrectomies, and 1 proximal gastrectomy. The mean age was 68 years (standard deviation (SD) = 12.1; range, 34-85 years). Associated comorbidity (Charlson) was 5.4 (SD = 2.7; range, 2-16); ASA 1 at 1.9%; ASA 2 at 36.8%; ASA 3 at 43.4%; and ASA 4 at 17.9%. Expected morbidity, according to POSSUM was 46.7%; observed morbidity was 50.5%. Morbidity ratio observed/expected was 1.08. Expected mortality, according to POSSUM = 13%, according to P-POSSUM = 4.9%, and according to O-POSSUM = 12.1%. Observed mortality was 7.8%. Mortality ratio observed/expected according to POSSUM, P-POSSUM, O-POSSUM was 0.6, 1.6, and 0.6, respectively. Morbidity results were within the confidence interval of the POSSUM estimation. Our results show lower mortality than the POSSUM and the O-POSSUM estimation (P < 0.001) and higher mortality regarding P-POSSUM estimation (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The control systems of risk allow us continuous evaluation of our results and objective comparison to other teams. Compared with the POSSUM scoring systems, our series showed quality improvement (morbidity and mortality) over time.

A randomized study of the safety of outpatient care for patients with bleeding peptic ulcer treated by endoscopic injection.

BACKGROUND: Outpatient management is safe for patients with non-variceal upper-GI bleeding who are at low risk of recurrent bleeding and death. However, outpatient care cannot be offered to many patients because of the presence of risk factors (severe comorbid disorders, major endoscopic stigmata of bleeding, significant hemorrhage). The present study assessed the safety of outpatient management for selected high-risk patients with bleeding peptic ulcer. METHODS: Patients hospitalized with upper-GI bleeding because of peptic ulcer with a non-bleeding vessel were eligible for inclusion in the study. Inclusion criteria were the following: ulcer size less than 15 mm, absence of hypovolemia, no associated severe disease, and appropriate family support. After endoscopic therapy (injection of epinephrine and polidocanol), patients were randomized to outpatient or hospital care. Patients remained in the emergency ward for a minimum of 6 hours before discharge, during which time omeprazole was administered intravenously. Outpatients were contacted by telephone daily during the first 3 days; a 24-hour telephone hotline was provided for any queries. For both groups, outpatient visits were scheduled at 7 to 10 and 30 days after discharge. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients were included: 40 were randomized to outpatient care and 42 to hospital care. Clinical and endoscopic variables were similar in both groups. The rate of recurrent bleeding was similar in both groups (4.8% outpatient, 5% hospital). There was no morbidity or mortality in either group at 30 days. Seven patients (17%) randomized to outpatient care received blood transfusion compared with 14 (38%) in the hospital care group (p=0.06). Mean cost of care per patient was significantly lower for the outpatient vs. the hospital group (970 US dollars vs. 1595 US dollars; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Selected patients with bleeding peptic ulcer can be safely managed as outpatients after endoscopic therapy. This policy conserves health care resources without compromising standards of care.