RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: Despite robotic-assisted thoracic surgery (RATS) lobectomy being on the rise in Europe, the majority of lobectomies in Germany are still performed with an open or thoracoscopic [video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS)] approach. Empirical evidence in favour of RATS lobectomy is inconsistent. This retrospective cohort study investigates the impact of RATS lobectomy compared with open thoracic surgery (OPEN) and VATS lobectomy on short-term outcomes in Germany using multicentre real-world data. METHODS: Anonymized routine data from Germany from 2018 to 2020 were retrospectively analysed. These data were provided by 61 German hospitals. Propensity score matching with subsequent generalized linear models was performed for statistical analysis. Additionally, in order to test the robustness of the results, multivariable regression analyses with cluster-robust standard errors were used. RESULTS: A total of 2498 patients with lobectomy were identified: in 1345 patients OPEN, in 983 VATS and 170 a RATS lobectomy was performed. RATS-compared to OPEN and VATS-reduced length of stay (LOS) by 28% or 4.2 days [confidence interval: 2.9; 5.4] and by 13% or 1.6 days [confidence interval: 0.2; 3.0], respectively. The risk of pneumonia was reduced by 5.3 percentage points in the RATS group compared to both OPEN and VATS (P = 0.07/0.01). RATS-compared to an open approach-reduces the risk of blood transfusions by 8.8 percentage points (P < 0.001) and LOS on the intensive care unit (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides strong support that RATS lobectomy outperforms OPEN or VATS lobectomy in terms of hospital LOS, and short-term in-hospital postoperative complications in the real-world scenario in Germany.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a severe lung condition that can be caused by a variety of underlying illnesses. Due to SARS-CoV-2, the number of cases with ARDS has increased worldwide, making it essential to compare this form of acute respiratory failure with classical causes of ARDS. While there have been several studies investigating the differences between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS in early stages of the pandemic, little is known about the differences in later phases, especially in Germany. AIM: The aim of this study is to characterize and compare the comorbidities, treatments, adverse events, and outcomes of COVID-19-associated ARDS and non-COVID-19 ARDS using a representative sample of German health claims data from the years 2019 and 2021. METHODS: We compare percentages and median values of the quantities of interest from the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS group, with p-values calculated after conducting Pearson's chi-squared test or the Wilcoxon rank sum test. We also run logistic regressions to access the effect of comorbidities on mortality for COVID-19 ARDS and non-COVID-19 ARDS. RESULTS: Despite many similarities, we find that that there are some remarkable differences between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS cases in Germany. Most importantly, COVID-19 ARDS cases display fewer comorbidities and adverse events, and are more often treated with non-invasive ventilation and nasal high-flow therapy. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of comprehending the contrasting epidemiological features and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS. This understanding can aid in clinical decision making and guide future research initiatives aimed at enhancing the management of patients afflicted with this severe condition.