Centralization of Pancreaticoduodenectomy: A Systematic Review and Spline Regression Analysis to Recommend Minimum Volume for a Specialist Pancreas Service.

OBJECTIVE: Through a systematic review and spline curve analysis, to better define the minimum volume threshold for hospitals to perform (pancreaticoduodenectomy) and the high-volume center. BACKGROUND: The pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a resource-intensive procedure, with high morbidity and long hospital stays resulting in centralization towards high-volume hospitals; the published definition of high volume remains variable. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following a systematic review of studies comparing PD outcomes across volume groups, semiparametric regression modeling of morbidity (%), mortality (%), length of stay (days), lymph node harvest (number of nodes), and cost ($USD) as continuous variables were performed and fitted as a smoothed function of splines. If this showed a nonlinear association, then a "zero-crossing" technique was used, which produced "first and second derivatives" to identify volume thresholds. RESULTS: Our analysis of 33 cohort studies (198,377 patients) showed 55 PDs/year and 43 PDs/year were the threshold value required to achieve the lowest morbidity and highest lymph node harvest, with model estimated df 5.154 ( P <0.001) and 8.254 ( P <0.001), respectively. The threshold value for mortality was ~45 PDs/year (model 9.219 ( P <0.001)), with the lowest mortality value (the optimum value) at ~70 PDs/year (ie, a high-volume center). No significant association was observed for cost ( edf =2, P =0.989) and length of stay ( edf =2.04, P =0.099). CONCLUSIONS: There is a significant benefit from the centralization of PD, with 55 PDs/year and 43 PDs/year as the threshold value required to achieve the lowest morbidity and highest lymph node harvest, respectively. To achieve mortality benefit, the minimum procedure threshold is 45 PDs/year, with the lowest and optimum mortality value (ie, a high-volume center) at approximately 70 PDs/year.

Defining Volume Targets for Regionalization of Pancreaticoduodenectomy, Esophagectomy, and Major Lung Resection Centers to Improve Oncologic and Surgical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Performance of complex cancer surgeries at high-volume (HV) centers has been shown to reduce operative mortality. However, the case volume threshold that should be used to define HV centers is unknown. In this study, we determined thresholds to define HV pancreaticoduodenectomy, esophagectomy, and major lung resection centers based on clinical parameters. Then, we assessed the association of hospital volume with oncologic outcomes and overall survival. METHODS: We identified adult NCDB patients undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy, esophagectomy, and major lung resections between 2004 and 2015. Multivariable models with restricted cubic splines were built to predict 5-year overall survival for each surgery group according to average yearly case volume, adjusting for demographic and clinicopathologic factors. The change point procedure was then used to identify volume cut-points for each surgery type. RESULTS: We identified the following thresholds to define HV status: 25 cases/year for pancreaticoduodenectomy; 18 cases/year for esophagectomy; and 54 cases/year for major lung resections. For all surgery types, treatment at a HV center was associated with an increased likelihood of R0 resection and adequate lymph node evaluation. HV centers had significantly decreased 30- and 90-day, postoperative mortality after adjusting for age, sex, race, comorbidities, histology, and stage. An overall survival benefit also was observed for patients undergoing resections at HV centers. CONCLUSIONS: Using novel methodology, our study identified volume thresholds for HV pancreaticoduodenectomy, esophagectomy, and major lung resection centers that were associated with improved oncologic outcomes and overall survival. These definitions of HV centers should be considered when evaluating regionalization of complex cancer care.

Association Between Historical Redlining and Access to High-Volume Hospitals Among Patients Undergoing Complex Cancer Surgery in California.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine the impact of historical redlining on travel patterns and utilization of high-volume hospitals (HVHs) among patients undergoing complex cancer operations. METHODS: The California Department of Health Care Access and Information database was utilized to identify patients who underwent esophagectomy (ES), pneumonectomy (PN), pancreatectomy (PA), or proctectomy (PR) for cancer between 2010 and 2020. Patient ZIP codes were assigned Home Owners' Loan Corporation grades (A: 'Best'; B: 'Still Desirable'; C: 'Definitely Declining'; and D: 'Hazardous/Redlined'). A clustered multivariable regression was used to assess the likelihood of patients undergoing surgery at an HVH, bypassing the nearest HVH, and total real driving time and travel distance. RESULTS: Among 14,944 patients undergoing high-risk cancer surgery (ES: 4.7%, n = 1216; PN: 57.8%, n = 8643; PD: 14.4%, n = 2154; PR: 23.1%, n = 3452), 782 (5.2%) individuals resided in the 'Best', whereas 3393 (22.7%) individuals resided in redlined areas. Median travel distance was 7.8 miles (interquartile range [IQR] 4.1-14.4) and travel time was 16.1 min (IQR 10.7-25.8). Overall, 10,763 (ES: 17.4%; PN: 76.0%; PA: 63.5%; PR: 78.4%) patients underwent surgery at an HVH. On multivariable regression, patients residing in redlined areas were less likely to undergo surgery at an HVH (odds ratio [OR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.82) and were more likely to bypass the nearest hospital (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.44-2.46). Notably, Medicaid insurance, minority status, limited English-language proficiency, and educational level mediated the disparities in access to HVH. CONCLUSION: Surgical disparities in access to HVH among patients from historically redlined areas are largely mediated by social determinants such as insurance and minority status.

Comparison of Hospital Volume and Risk-Standardized Mortality Rate as a Proxy for Hospital Quality in Complex Oncologic Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Centralization of hepatopancreatobiliary procedures to more experienced centers has been recommended but remains controversial. Hospital volume and risk-stratified mortality rates (RSMR) are metrics for interhospital comparison. We compared facility operative volume with facility RSMR as a proxy for hospital quality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery for liver (LC), biliary tract (BTC), and pancreatic (PDAC) cancer were identified in the National Cancer Database (2004-2018). Hierarchical logistic regression was used to create facility-specific models for RSMR. Volume (high versus low) was determined by quintile. Performance (high versus low) was determined by RSMR tercile. Primary outcomes included median facility RSMR and RSMR distributions. Volume- and RSMR-based redistribution was simulated and compared for reductions in 90-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 106,217 patients treated at 1282 facilities were included; 17,695 had LC, 23,075 had BTC, and 65,447 had PDAC. High-volume centers (HVC) had lower RSMR compared with medium-volume centers and low-volume centers for LC, BTC, and PDAC (all p < 0.001). High-performance centers (HPC) had lower RSMR compared with medium-performance centers and low-performance centers for LC, BTC, and PDAC (all p < 0.001). Volume-based redistribution required 16.0 patients for LC, 11.2 for BTC, and 14.9 for PDAC reassigned to 15, 22, and 20 centers, respectively, per life saved within each US census region. RSMR-based redistribution required 4.7 patients for LC, 4.2 for BTC, and 4.9 for PDAC reassigned to 316, 403, and 418 centers, respectively, per life saved within each US census region. CONCLUSIONS: HVC and HPC have the lowest overall and risk-standardized 90-day mortality after oncologic hepatopancreatobiliary procedures, but RSMR may outperform volume as a measure of hospital quality.

Overall Volume of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgery Positively Impacts Gastric Cancer Outcomes at Centers with Low Gastrectomy Volume.

BACKGROUND: The relationship between hospital volume and surgical mortality is well documented. However, complete centralization of surgical care is not always feasible. The present study investigates how overall volume of upper gastrointestinal surgery at hospitals influences patient outcomes following resection for gastric adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: National Cancer Database (2010-2019) patients with pathologic stage 1-3 gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent gastrectomy were identified. Three cohorts were created: low-volume hospitals (LVH) for both gastrectomy and overall upper gastrointestinal operations, mixed-volume hospital (MVH) for low-volume gastrectomy but high-volume overall upper gastrointestinal operations, and high-volume gastrectomy hospitals (HVH). Chi-squared tests were used to analyze sociodemographic factors and surgical outcomes and Kaplan-Meier method for survival analysis. RESULTS: In total, 26,398 patients were identified (LVH: 20,099; MVH: 539; HVH: 5,760). The 5-year survival was equivalent between MVH and HVH for all stages of disease (MVH: 56.0%, HVH 55.6%; p = 0.9866) and when stratified into early (MVH: 69.9%, HVH: 65.4%; p = 0.1998) and late stages (MVH: 24.7%, HVH: 32.0%; p = 0.1480), while LVH had worse survival. After matching patients, postoperative outcomes were worse for LVH, but there was no difference between MVH and HVH in terms of adequate lymphadenectomy, margin status, readmission rates, and 90-day mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Despite lower gastrectomy volume for cancer, postoperative gastrectomy outcomes at centers that perform a high number of upper gastrointestinal cancer surgeries were similar to hospitals with high gastrectomy volume. These hospitals offer a blueprint for providing equivalent outcomes to high volume centers while enhancing availability of quality cancer care.

Nationwide Audit of Postoperative Mortality and Complications After Digestive Cancer Surgery: Will New Legal Thresholds be Sufficient?

BACKGROUND: French policymakers recently chose to regulate high-risk digestive cancer surgery (DCS). A minimum of five cases per year should be performed for each of the following types of curative cancer surgery: esophagus/esogastric junction (ECS), stomach (GCS), liver (LCS, metastasis included), pancreas (PCS), and rectum (RCS). This study aimed to evaluate the hypothetical beneficial effects of the new legal minimal volume thresholds on the rates of 90-day postoperative mortality (90POM) for each high-risk DCS. METHODS: This nationwide observational population-based cohort study used data extracted from the French National Health Insurance Database from 1 January 2015-31 December 2017. Mixed-effects logistic regression models were performed to estimate the independent effect of hospital volume. RESULTS: During the study period, 61,169 patients (57.1 % male, age 69.7 ±12.2 years) underwent high-risk DCS including ECS (n = 4060), GCS (n = 5572), PCS (n = 8598), LCS (n = 10,988), and RCS (n = 31,951), with 90POM of 6.6 %, 6.9 %, 6.0 %, 5.2 %, and 2.9 %, respectively. For hospitals fulfilling the new criteria, 90POM was lower after adjustment only for LCS (odds ratio [OR],15.2; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 9.5-23.2) vs OR, 7.6; 95 % CI, 5.2-11.0; p < 0.0001) and PCS (OR, 3.6; 95 % CI, 1.7-7.6 vs OR, 2.1; 95 % CI, 1.0-4.4; p<0.0001). With higher thresholds, all DCSs showed a lower adjusted risk of 90POM (e.g., OR, 0.38; 95 % CI, 0.28-0.51) for PCS of 40 or higher. CONCLUSION: Based on retrospective data, thresholds higher than those promulgated would better improve the safety of high-risk DCS. New policies aiming to further centralize high-risk DCS should be considered, associated with a clear clinical pathway of care for patients to improve accessibility to complex health care in France.

Should Cytoreductive Surgery Alone for Peritoneal Metastases of Colorectal Origin be Centralized? A National Study of 4159 Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Addition of oxaliplatin-based hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) to cytoreductive surgery (CRS) in the treatment of peritoneal metastases of colorectal origin (CRPM) did not show any survival benefit in the PRODIGE 7 trial (P7). This study aimed to investigate whether perioperative outcomes after CRS alone for CRPM patients is mediated by hospital volume and to determine the effect of P7 on French practice for CRPM patients treated respectively with CRS alone and CRS/HIPEC. METHODS: Data from CRPM patients treated with CRS alone between 2013 and 2020 in France were collected through a national medical database. The study used a cutoff value of the annual CRS-alone caseload affecting the 90-day postoperative mortality (POM) determined from our previous study to define low-volume (LV) HIPEC and high-volume (HV) HIPEC centers. Perioperative outcomes were compared between no-HIPEC, LV-HIPEC, and HV-HIPEC centers. The trend between years and HIPEC rates was analyzed using the Cochrane-Armitage test. RESULTS: Data from 4159 procedures were analyzed. The patients treated in no-HIPEC and LV-HIPEC centers were older compared with HV-HIPEC centers (p < 0.0001) and had a higher Elixhauser comorbidity index (p < 0.0001) and less complex surgery (p < 0.0001). Whereas the major morbidity (MM) rate did not differ between groups (p = 0.79), the 90-day POM was lower in HV-HIPEC centers than in no-HIPEC and LV-HIPEC centers (5.4% vs 15% and 13.3%; p < 0.0001), with lower failure-to-rescue (FTR) (p < 0.0001). After P7, the CRS/HIPEC rate decreased drastically in Cancer centers (p < 0.001), whereas patients treated with CRS alone are still referred to expert centers. CONCLUSIONS: Centralization of CRS alone should improve patient selection as well as FTR and POM. After P7, CRS/HIPEC decreased mostly in Cancer centers, without any impact on the number of CRS-alone cases referred to expert centers.

Surgical and Oncological Outcomes of Level III-IV Versus Level I-II Inferior Vena Cava Thrombectomy: A Decennial Experience of a High-Volume European Referral Center.

BACKGROUND: In patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) the role of the extent of tumor thrombus into the inferior vena cava (IVC) has never been addressed from a surgical and oncologic standpoint. This study aims to evaluate differences between level III-IV versus level I-II patients concerning peri- and postoperative morbidity, additional treatments and long-term oncological outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Overall, 40 patients with RCC underwent radical nephrectomy (RN) with IVC thrombectomy at a single European institution between 2010 and 2023. Complications were reported according to the European Union (EAU) guidelines recommendations. Spider chart served as graphical depiction of surgical and oncologic outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 22 (55%) and 18 (45%) patients harbored level III-IV and I-II IVC thrombus. Level III-IV patients experienced significantly higher rates of intraoperative transfusions (68 vs 39%), but not significantly higher rates of intraoperative complications (32% vs 28%). Level III-IV patients had significantly higher rates of postoperative transfusions (82% vs 33%) and Clavien Dindo ≥3 complications (41% vs 15%). In level III-IV versus level I-II patients, median follow up was 482 and 1070 days, the rate of distant recurrence was 59% and 50%, the rate of systemic progression was 27% and 13%, and the rate of additional treatment/s was 64% and 61%, respectively (all p values > 0.05). Overall survival was 36% in level III-IV patients and 67% in level I-II (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that patients with level III-IV RCC who are candidates for IVC thrombectomy should be counselled about the higher likelihood of postoperative severe adverse events and worse overall survival relative to level I-II counterparts.

Comparison of outcomes and required tools between transvenous extraction of pacemaker and implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads: Insight from single high-volume center experience.

INTRODUCTION: Reports of comparison with procedural outcomes for implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and pacemaker (PM) transvenous lead extraction (TLE) are old and limited. We sought to compare the safety, efficacy, and procedural properties of ICD and PM TLE and assess the impact of lead age. METHODS: The study cohort included all consecutive patients with ICD and PM TLE in the Cleveland Clinic Prospective TLE Registry between 2013 and 2022. Extraction success, complications, and failure employed the definitions described in the HRS 2017 TLE guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 885 ICD leads, a median implant duration of 8 (5-11) years in 810 patients, and 1352 PM leads of 7 (3-13) years in 807 patients were included. Procedural success rates in ICD patients were superior to those of PM in >20 years leads but similar in ≤20 years leads. In the PM group, the complete success rate of TLE decreased significantly according to the increase of lead age, but not in the ICD group. ICD TLE required more extraction tools compared with PM TLE but cases with older leads required non-laser sheath extraction tools in both groups. The most common injury site in major complication cases differed between ICD and PM TLE, although major complication rates showed no difference in both groups (2.7% vs. 1.6%, p = .12). CONCLUSION: The procedural success rate by TLE is greater for ICD patients than PM patients with leads >20 years old but requires more extraction tools. Common vascular complication sites and the impact of lead age on procedural outcomes and required tools differed between ICD and PM TLE.

A high-volume study on the impact of diabetes mellitus on clinical outcomes after surgical and percutaneous cardiac interventions.

BACKGROUND: Type I and type II diabetes mellitus (DM) patients have a higher prevalence of cardiovascular diseases, as well as a higher mortality risk of cardiovascular diseases and interventions. This study provides an update on the impact of DM on clinical outcomes, including mortality, complications and reinterventions, using data on percutaneous and surgical cardiac interventions in the Netherlands. METHODS: This is a retrospective, nearby nationwide study using real-world observational data registered by the Netherlands Heart Registration (NHR) between 2015 and 2020. Patients treated for combined or isolated coronary artery disease (CAD) and aortic valve disease (AVD) were studied. Bivariate analyses and multivariate logistic regression models were used to evaluate the association between DM and clinical outcomes both unadjusted and adjusted for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: 241,360 patients underwent the following interventions; percutaneous coronary intervention(N = 177,556), coronary artery bypass grafting(N = 39,069), transcatheter aortic valve implantation(N = 11,819), aortic valve replacement(N = 8,028) and combined CABG and AVR(N = 4,888). The incidence of DM type I and II was 21.1%, 26.7%, 17.8%, 27.6% and 27% respectively. For all procedures, there are statistically significant differences between patients living with and without diabetes, adjusted for baseline characteristics, at the expense of patients with diabetes for 30-days mortality after PCI (OR = 1.68; p <.001); 120-days mortality after CABG (OR = 1.35; p <.001), AVR (OR = 1.5; p <.03) and CABG + AVR (OR = 1.42; p =.02); and 1-year mortality after CABG (OR = 1.43; p <.001), TAVI (OR = 1.21; p =.01) and PCI (OR = 1.68; p <.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with DM remain to have unfavourable outcomes compared to nondiabetic patients which calls for a critical reappraisal of existing care pathways aimed at diabetic patients within the cardiovascular field.

Earned outcomes correlate with reliability-adjusted surgical mortality after abdominal aortic aneurysm repair and predict future performance.

OBJECTIVE: Cumulative, probability-based metrics are regularly used to measure quality in professional sports, but these methods have not been applied to health care delivery. These techniques have the potential to be particularly useful in describing surgical quality, where case volume is variable and outcomes tend to be dominated by statistical "noise." The established statistical technique used to adjust for differences in case volume is reliability-adjustment, which emphasizes statistical "signal" but has several limitations. We sought to validate a novel measure of surgical quality based on earned outcomes methods (deaths above average [DAA]) against reliability-adjusted mortality rates, using abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair outcomes to illustrate the measure's performance. METHODS: Earned outcomes methods were used to calculate the outcome of interest for each patient: DAA. Hospital-level DAA was calculated for non-ruptured open AAA repair and endovascular aortic repair (EVAR) in the Vascular Quality Initiative database from 2016 to 2019. DAA for each center is the sum of observed - predicted risk of death for each patient; predicted risk of death was calculated using established multivariable logistic regression modeling. Correlations of DAA with reliability-adjusted mortality rates and procedure volume were determined. Because an accurate quality metric should correlate with future results, outcomes from 2016 to 2017 were used to categorize hospital quality based on: (1) risk-adjusted mortality; (2) risk- and reliability-adjusted mortality; and (3) DAA. The best performing quality metric was determined by comparing the ability of these categories to predict 2018 to 2019 risk-adjusted outcomes. RESULTS: During the study period, 3734 patients underwent open repair (106 hospitals), and 20,680 patients underwent EVAR (183 hospitals). DAA was closely correlated with reliability-adjusted mortality rates for open repair (r = 0.94; P < .001) and EVAR (r = 0.99; P < .001). DAA also correlated with hospital case volume for open repair (r = -.54; P < .001), but not EVAR (r = 0.07; P = .3). In 2016 to 2017, most hospitals had 0% mortality (55% open repair, 57% EVAR), making it impossible to evaluate these hospitals using traditional risk-adjusted mortality rates alone. Further, zero mortality hospitals in 2016 to 2017 did not demonstrate improved outcomes in 2018 to 2019 for open repair (3.8% vs 4.6%; P = .5) or EVAR (0.8% vs 1.0%; P = .2) compared with all other hospitals. In contrast to traditional risk-adjustment, 2016 to 2017 DAA evenly divided centers into quality quartiles that predicted 2018 to 2019 performance with increased mortality rate associated with each decrement in quality quartile (Q1, 3.2%; Q2, 4.0%; Q3, 5.1%; Q4, 6.0%). There was a significantly higher risk of mortality at worst quartile open repair hospitals compared with best quartile hospitals (odds ratio, 2.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-3.76; P = .03). Using 2016 to 2019 DAA to define quality, highest quality quartile open repair hospitals had lower median DAA compared with lowest quality quartile hospitals (-1.18 DAA vs +1.32 DAA; P < .001), correlating with lower median reliability-adjusted mortality rates (3.6% vs 5.1%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Adjustment for differences in hospital volume is essential when measuring hospital-level outcomes. Earned outcomes accurately categorize hospital quality and correlate with reliability-adjustment but are easier to calculate and interpret. From 2016 to 2019, highest quality open AAA repair hospitals prevented >40 perioperative deaths compared with the average hospital, and >80 perioperative deaths compared with lowest quality hospitals.

Variability in short-term mortality following repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms across centers and physicians.

BACKGROUND: Variation in the care management of repairs for ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms between centers and physicians, such as procedural volumes, may explain differences in mortality outcomes. First, we quantified the center and physician variability associated with 30- and 90-day mortality risk after ruptured open surgical repair (rOSR) and ruptured endovascular aneurysm repair (rEVAR). Second, we explored wheter part of this variability was attributable to procedural volume at the center and physician levels. METHODS: Two cohorts including rOSR and rEVAR procedures between 2013 and 2019 were analyzed from the Vascular Quality Initiative database. Thirty- and 90-day all-cause mortality rates were derived from linked Medicare claims data. The median odds ratio (MOR) (median mortality risk from low- to high-risk cluster) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (variability attributable to each cluster) for 30- and 90-day mortality risks associated with center and physician variability were derived using patient-level adjusted multilevel logistic regression models. Procedural volume was calculated at the center and physician levels and stratified by quartiles. The models were sequentially adjusted for volumes, and the difference in ICCs (without vs with accounting for volume) was calculated to describe the center and physician variability in mortality risk attributable to volumes. RESULTS: We included 450 rOSRs (mean age, 74.5 ± 7.6 years; 23.5% female) and 752 rEVARs (76.4 ± 8.4 years; 26.1% female). After rOSRs, the 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 32.9% and 38.7%, respectively. No variability across centers and physicians was noted (30- and 90-day MORs ≈1 and ICCs ≈0%). Neither center nor physician volume was associated with 30-day (P = .477 and P = .796) or 90-day mortality (P = .098 and P = .559). After rEVAR, the 30- and 90-day mortality rates were 21.3% and 25.5%, respectively. Significant center variability (30-day MOR, 1.82 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.33-2.22]; ICC, 11% [95% CI, 2%-36%]; and 90-day MOR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.37-2.09]; ICC, 10% [95% CI, 3%-30%]), but negligeable variability across physicians (30- and 90-day MORs ≈1 and ICCs ≈0%) were noted. Neither center nor physician volume were associated with 30-day (P = .076 and P = .336) or 90-day mortality risk (P = .066 and P = .584). The center variability attributable to procedural volumes was negligeable (difference in ICCs, 1% for 30-day mortality; 0% for 90-day mortality). CONCLUSIONS: Variability in practice from center to center was associated with short-term mortality outcomes in rEVAR, but not for rOSR. Physician variability was not associated with short-term mortality for rOSR or rEVAR. Annualized center and physician volumes did not significantly explain these associations. Further work is needed to identify center-level factors affecting the quality of care and outcomes for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Center-level outcomes following elective fenestrated endovascular aortic aneurysm repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative database.

OBJECTIVE: Hospital volume is associated with mortality after open aortic aneurysm repair. Fenestrated and branched endovascular aortic repair (B-FEVAR) has been increasingly used for repair of complex thoracoabdominal and juxtarenal aneurysms, but evidence of a center-volume relationship is limited. We aimed to measure the association of center volume with in-hospital mortality, postoperative outcomes, and 1-year survival following B-FEVAR. METHODS: Patients undergoing elective endovascular thoracoabdominal and complex abdominal aneurysm repair with branch intervention (2014-2021) listed within the national Vascular Quality Initiative Thoracic Endovascular Aortic Repair/Complex EVAR database were analyzed. Centers were grouped into quartiles by mean annual procedure volume. Multivariable regression was used to evaluate the effect of center volume on in-hospital mortality adjusting for baseline and procedural characteristics. Kaplan-Meier estimation, log rank test, and mixed effects Cox regression were used to evaluate 1-year survival. RESULTS: A total of 4302 adult elective F-BEVAR procedures were identified at a total of 163 centers. In-hospital mortality did not differ by hospital volume (quartile [Q]1 = 35/1059 [3.3%]; Q2 = 30/1063 [2.8%]; Q3 = 33/1120 [2.9%]; and Q4 = 44/1060 [4.2%]; P = .308). The high volume group had a higher rate of major complication (Q1 = 14.9%; Q2 = 12.8%; Q3 = 13.3%; and Q4 = 20.1%; adjusted P < .001). Physician-modified grafts were more frequently employed in high-volume centers (Q1 = 4.5%; Q2 = 18.7%; Q3 = 11.3%; and Q4 = 19.2%; P < .001), with a decreased incidence of any endoleak noted at the end of the procedure (Q1 = 34.9%; Q2 = 32.8%; Q3 = 30.0%; and Q4 = 29.0%; P = .003). In the multivariable analysis, in-hospital mortality was not associated with center volume, comparing very low volume to medium- and high-volume centers (odds ratio [95% confidence interval] vs Q4: Q1 = 1.1 [0.6-1.9], Q2 = 0.6 [0.4-1.1], and Q3 = 0.9 [0.5-1.5]; all P > .05). No significant difference was found in 1-year survival between center volume groups. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital mortality is not associated with procedure volume within centers performing complex endovascular aortic repair. However, complication rates and endoleak may be associated with procedure volume. Long-term outcomes by annualized procedure volume, specifically graft durability and sac expansion, should be investigated.

A patient-centered textbook outcome measure effectively discriminates contemporary elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair quality.

BACKGROUND: There is persistent controversy surrounding the merit of surgical volume benchmarks being used solely as a sufficient proxy for assessing the quality of open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair. Importantly, operative volume quotas may fail to reflect a more nuanced and comprehensive depiction of surgical outcomes most relevant to patients. Accordingly, we herein propose a patient-centered textbook outcome (TO) for AAA repair that is analogous to other large magnitude extirpative operations performed in other surgical specialties, and test its feasibility to discriminate hospital performance using Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) volume guidelines. METHODS: All elective open infrarenal AAA repairs (OAR) in the SVS-Vascular Quality Initiative were examined (2009-2022). The primary end point was a TO, defined as a composite of no in-hospital complication or reintervention/reoperation, length of stay of ≤10 days, home discharge, and 1-year survival rates. The discriminatory ability of the TO measure was assessed by comparing centers that did or did not meet the SVS annual OAR volume threshold recommendation (high volume ≥10 OARs/year; low volume <10 OARs/year). Logistic regression and multivariable models adjusted for patient and procedure-related differences. RESULTS: A total of 9657 OARs across 198 centers were analyzed (mean age, 69.5 ± 8.4 years; female, 26%; non-White, 12%). A TO was identified in 44% (n = 4293) of the overall cohort. The incidence of individual TO components included no in-hospital complication (61%), no in-hospital reintervention or reoperation (92%), length of stay of ≤10 days (78%), home discharge (76%), and 1-year survival (91%). Median annual center volume was 6 (interquartile range, 3-10) and a majority of centers did not meet the SVS volume suggested threshold (<10 OARs/year, n = 148 [74%]). However, most patients (6265 of 9657 [65%]) underwent OAR in high-volume hospitals. When comparing high- and low-volume centers, a TO was more likely to occur in high-volume institutions: ≥10 OARs/year (46%) vs <10 OARs/year (42%; P = .0006). The association of a protective effect for higher center volume remained after risk adjustment (odds ratio, 1.1; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-1.26; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: TOs for elective OAR reflect a more nuanced and comprehensive patient centered proxy to measure care delivery, consistent with other surgical specialties. Surprisingly, a TO was achieved in <50% of elective AAA cases nationally. Although the likelihood of a TO seems to correlate with SVS center volume recommendations, it more importantly reflects elements which may be prioritized by patients and thus offers insights into further improving real-world AAA care.

Surgeon volume and outcomes following thoracic endovascular aortic repair for blunt thoracic aortic injury.

OBJECTIVE: Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for blunt thoracic aortic injury (BTAI) at high-volume hospitals has previously been associated with lower perioperative mortality, but the impact of annual surgeon volume on outcomes following TEVAR for BTAI remains unknown. METHODS: We analyzed Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data from patients with BTAI that underwent TEVAR between 2013 and 2023. Annual surgeon volumes were computed as the number of TEVARs (for any pathology) performed over a 1-year period preceding each procedure and were further categorized into quintiles. Surgeons in the first volume quintile were categorized as low volume (LV), the highest quintile as high volume (HV), and the middle three quintiles as medium volume (MV). TEVAR procedures performed by surgeons with less than 1-year enrollment in the VQI were excluded. Using multilevel logistic regression models, we evaluated associations between surgeon volume and perioperative outcomes, accounting for annual center volumes and adjusting for potential confounders, including aortic injury grade and severity of coexisting injuries. Multilevel models accounted for the nested clustering of patients and surgeons within the same center. Sensitivity analysis excluding patients with grade IV BTAI was performed. RESULTS: We studied 1321 patients who underwent TEVAR for BTAI (28% by LV surgeons [0-1 procedures per year], 52% by MV surgeons [2-8 procedures per year], 20% by HV surgeons [≥9 procedures per year]). With higher surgeon volume, TEVAR was delayed more (in <4 hours: LV: 68%, MV: 54%, HV: 46%; P < .001; elective (>24 hours): LV: 5.1%; MV: 8.9%: HV: 14%), heparin administered more (LV: 80%, MV: 81%, HV: 87%; P = .007), perioperative mortality appears lower (LV: 11%, MV: 7.3%, HV: 6.5%; P = .095), and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke was lower (LV: 6.5%, MV: 3.6%, HV: 1.5%; P = .006). After adjustment, compared with LV surgeons, higher volume surgeons had lower odds of perioperative mortality (MV: 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.97; P = .039; HV: 0.45; 95% CI, 0.16-1.22; P = .12; MV/HV: 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.96; P = .038) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke (MV: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.18-0.81; P = .011; HV: 0.16; 95% CI, 0.04-0.61; P = .008). Sensitivity analysis found lower adjusted odds for perioperative mortality (although not significant) and ischemic/hemorrhagic stroke for higher volume surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TEVAR for BTAI, higher surgeon volume is independently associated with lower perioperative mortality and postoperative stroke, regardless of hospital volume. Future studies could elucidate if TEVAR for non-ruptured BTAI might be delayed and allow stabilization, heparinization, and involvement of a higher TEVAR volume surgeon.

Regionalizing ovarian cancer cytoreduction to high-volume centers and the impact on patient travel in New York State.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the theoretical impact of regionalizing cytoreductive surgery for ovarian cancer (OC) to high-volume facilities on patient travel. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients with OC who underwent cytoreduction between 1/1/2004-12/31/2018 from the New York State Cancer Registry and Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System. Hospitals were stratified by low-volume (<21 cytoreductive surgical procedures for OC annually) and high-volume centers (≥21 procedures annually). A simulation was performed; outcomes of interest were driving distance and time between the centroid of the patient's residence zip code and the treating facility zip code. RESULTS: Overall, 60,493 patients met inclusion criteria. Between 2004 and 2018, 210 facilities were performing cytoreductive surgery for OC in New York; 159 facilities (75.7%) met low-volume and 51 (24.3%) met high-volume criteria. Overall, 10,514 patients (17.4%) were treated at low-volume and 49,979 (82.6%) at high-volume facilities. In 2004, 78.2% of patients were treated at high-volume facilities, which increased to 84.6% in 2018 (P < .0001). Median travel distance and time for patients treated at high-volume centers was 12.2 miles (IQR, 5.6-25.5) and 23.0 min (IQR, 15.2-37.0), and 8.2 miles (IQR, 3.7-15.9) and 16.8 min (IQR, 12.4-26.0) for patients treated at low-volume centers. If cytoreductive surgery was centralized to high-volume centers, median distance and time traveled for patients originally treated at low-volume centers would be 11.2 miles (IQR, 3.8-32.3; P < .001) and 20.2 min (IQR, 13.6-43.0; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Centralizing cytoreductive surgery for OC to high-volume centers in New York would increase patient travel burden by negligible amounts of distance and time for most patients.

In the patient's shoes: The impact of hospital proximity and volume on stage I endometrial cancer care patterns and outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the impact of travel burden and hospital volume on care patterns and outcomes in stage I endometrial cancer. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study identified patients from the National Cancer Database with stage I epithelial endometrial carcinoma who underwent hysterectomy between 2012 and 2020. Patients were categorized into: lowest quartiles of travel distance and hospital surgical volume for endometrial cancer (Local) and highest quartiles of distance and volume (Travel). Primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were surgery route, lymph node (LN) assessment method, length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmission, and 30- and 90-day mortality. Results were stratified by tumor recurrence risk. Outcomes were compared using propensity-score matching. Propensity-adjusted survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using log-rank tests. Cox models estimated hazard ratios for death. Sensitivity analysis using modified Poisson regressions was performed. RESULTS: Among 36,514 patients, 51.4% were Local and 48.6% Travel. The two cohorts differed significantly in demographics and clinicopathologic characteristics. Upon propensity-score matching (p < 0.05 for all), more Travel patients underwent minimally invasive surgery (88.1%vs79.1%) with fewer conversions to laparotomy (2.0%vs2.6%), more sentinel (20.5%vs11.3%) and fewer traditional LN assessments (58.1vs61.7%) versus Local. Travel patients had longer intervals to surgery (≥30 days:56.7%vs50.1%) but shorter LOS (<2 days:76.9%vs59.8%), fewer readmissions (1.9%vs2.7%%), and comparable 30- and 90-day mortality. OS and HR for death remained comparable between the matched groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to surgery in nearby low-volume hospitals, patients with stage I epithelial endometrial cancer who travelled longer distances to high-volume centers experienced more favorable short-term outcomes and care patterns with comparable long-term survival.

Effect of surgical volume on short-term outcomes of cytoreductive surgery for advanced-stage ovarian cancer: A population-based study from the Dutch Gynecological Oncology Audit.

OBJECTIVE: Despite lacking clinical data, the Dutch government is considering increasing the minimum annual surgical volume per center from twenty to fifty cytoreductive surgeries (CRS) for advanced-stage ovarian cancer (OC). This study aims to evaluate whether this increase is warranted. METHODS: This population-based study included all CRS for FIGO-stage IIB-IVB OC registered in eighteen Dutch hospitals between 2019 and 2022. Short-term outcomes included result of CRS, length of stay, severe complications, 30-day mortality, time to adjuvant chemotherapy, and textbook outcome. Patients were stratified by annual volume: low-volume (nine hospitals, <25), medium-volume (four hospitals, 29-37), and high-volume (five hospitals, 54-84). Descriptive statistics and multilevel logistic regressions were used to assess the (case-mix adjusted) associations of surgical volume and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 1646 interval CRS (iCRS) and 789 primary CRS (pCRS) were included. No associations were found between surgical volume and different outcomes in the iCRS cohort. In the pCRS cohort, high-volume was associated with increased complete CRS rates (aOR 1.9, 95%-CI 1.2-3.1, p = 0.010). Furthermore, high-volume was associated with increased severe complication rates (aOR 2.3, 1.1-4.6, 95%-CI 1.3-4.2, p = 0.022) and prolonged length of stay (aOR 2.3, 95%-CI 1.3-4.2, p = 0.005). 30-day mortality, time to adjuvant chemotherapy, and textbook outcome were not associated with surgical volume in the pCRS cohort. Subgroup analyses (FIGO-stage IIIC-IVB) showed similar results. Various case-mix factors significantly impacted outcomes, warranting case-mix adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses do not support further centralization of iCRS for advanced-stage OC. High-volume was associated with higher complete pCRS, suggesting either a more accurate selection in these hospitals or a more aggressive approach. The higher completeness rates were at the expense of higher severe complications and prolonged admissions.

Short-term survival analysis of a risk-adjusted model for ovarian cancer care.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the impact on short-term ovarian cancer survival associated with treatment at high-performing hospitals using the observed-to-expected ratio (O/E) for adherence to ovarian cancer treatment guidelines as a risk-adjusted measure of hospital quality care. METHODS: This was a retrospective population-based study of stage I-IV invasive epithelial ovarian cancer reported to California Cancer Registry 1996-2017. A fit logistic regression model, risk-adjusted for patient and disease characteristics, was used to calculate O/E for each hospital stratified by hospital annual case volume. Cox proportional hazards model was used for survival analyses at 3, 6, 12, 24 months and stratified according to sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: The study population included 35,725 subjects treated at 443 hospitals: Low-O/E - 26.4% of cases; Intermediate-O/E - 55.5% of cases; and High-O/E - 18.1% of cases. Overall median survival by hospital category was: High-O/E = 72.5 months (95% CI = 68.6-78.6 months), Intermediate-O/E = 68.6 months (95% CI = 65.9-71.6 months), Low-O/E = 47.0 months (95% CI = 44.2-49.2 months). Initial treatment at a High-O/E hospital (HR = 1.00) was a statistically significant and independent predictor of improved short-term survival compared to Low-O/E hospitals at 3 months (HR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.29-1.65), 6 months (HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 1.22-1.50), 12 months (HR = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.17-1.38), and 24 months (HR = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.11-1.27). Significant and independent associations between improved sort-term survival and High/O/E care were observed for Whites, Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islanders (A/PI), across SES strata, and among all payer categories. CONCLUSION: Ovarian cancer care at a High-O/E hospital is an independent predictor of improved outcome and the survival advantage is disproportionately weighted toward the short-term time horizon following diagnosis.

Frailty in patients with IDH-mutant gliomas: experience from a high-volume tumor center.

PURPOSE: Gliomas are increasingly diagnosed in an aging population, with treatment outcomes influenced by factors like tumor genetics and patient frailty. This study focused on IDH-mutant gliomas and assessed how frailty affects 30-day readmission and overall survival (OS). We aimed to address a gap in understanding the impact of frailty on this specific glioma subtype. METHODS: 136 patients with an IDH-mutant glioma between 2007 and 2021 were identified at our institution. High frailty was classified by scores ≥ 1 on the 5-factor modified frailty index (mFI-5) and ≥ 3 on the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI). Patient and tumor characteristics including age, sex, race, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), Body Mass Index (BMI), tumor type and location, type of operation, and therapy course were recorded. Outcomes measured included 30-day readmission and overall survival (OS). Analysis was conducted utilizing logistic regression and Kaplan-Meier curves. RESULTS: Of the 136 patients, 52 (38%) had high frailty: 18 with CCI ≥ 3, 34 with mFI-5 ≥ 1. High frailty correlated with increased BMI (CCI: 30.2, mFI-5: 30.1 kg/m2), more neurological deficits (CCI: 61%, mFI-5: 56%), and older age at surgery (CCI: 63, mFI-5: 48 years). Hospital readmission within 30 days occurred in 8 (5.9%) patients. Logistic regression indicated no significant difference in 30-day readmission rates (CCI: p = 0.30, mFI-5: p = 0.62) or median OS between high and low frailty groups. However, patients treated at our institution with newly diagnosed tumors with high mFI-5 had a 6.79 times higher adjusted death hazard than those with low mFI-5 (p = .049). CONCLUSION: Our analysis revealed that CCI and mFI-5 were not significantly associated with 30-day nor OS. However, in patients with non-recurrent tumors, there was a significant association of mFI-5 with OS. Further study of frailty with larger cohorts is warranted to enhance prognostication of outcome after neurosurgical treatment.