Evaluating the Cost for Robotic vs "Non-Robotic" Transhiatal Esophagectomy.

INTRODUCTION: This study was undertaken to analyze and compare the cost of robotic transhiatal esophagectomy (THE) to "non-robotic" THE (ie, "open" and laparoscopic). METHODS: With IRB approval, we prospectively followed 82 patients who underwent THE. We analyzed clinical outcomes and perioperative charges and costs associated with THE. To compare profitability, the robotic approach was analyzed against "non-robotic" approaches of THE using F-test, Mann-Whitney U test/Student's t-test, and Fisher's exact test. Statistical significance was reported as P ≤0.05. Data are presented as median (mean ± SD). RESULTS: 67 patients underwent the robotic approach, and 15 patients underwent "non-robotic" approach; 4 were "open" and 11 were laparoscopic. 79 patients had adenocarcinoma. Operative duration for robotic THE was 327 (331 ± 82.8) vs 213 (225 ± 62.0) minutes (P = 0.0001) and estimated blood loss was 150 (184 ± 136.1) vs 300 (476 ± 708.7) mL (P = 0.0001). Length of stay was 7 (11 ± 11.8) vs 8 (12 ± 10.6) days (P = 0.76). 16 patients had post-operative complications with a Clavien-Dindo score of three or more. Hospital charges for robotic THE were $197,405 ($259,936 ± 203,630.8) vs "non-robotic" THE $159,588 ($201,565 ± $185,763.5) (P = 0.31). Cost of care for robotic THE was $34,822 ($48,844 ± $45,832.8) vs "non-robotic" THE was $23,939 ($39,386 ± $44,827.2) (P = 0.47). Payment received for robotic THE was $14,365 ($30,003 ± $40,874.7) vs "non-robotic" THE was $28,080 ($41,087 ± $44,509.1) (P = 0.41). 15% of robotic operations were profitable vs 13% of "non-robotic" operations. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were predominantly older overweight men who had adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. The robotic approach had increased operative time and minimal blood loss. More than a fourth of operations included concomitant procedures. Patients were discharged approximately one week after THE. Overall, the robotic approach has no apparent significant differences in charges, cost, or profitability.

Influence of the introduction of caseload requirements on indication for visceral cancer surgery in Switzerland.

BACKGROUND: In 2013 Swiss health authorities implemented annual hospital caseload requirements (CR) for five areas of visceral surgery. We assess the impact of the implementation of CR on indication for surgery in esophageal, pancreatic and rectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of national registry data of all inpatient admissions between January 1st, 2005 and December 31st, 2015. Primary end-point was the age-adjusted resection rate for esophageal, pancreatic and rectal cancer among patients with at least one cancer-specific hospitalization per year. We calculated age-adjusted rate ratios for period effects before and after implementation of CR and odds ratios (OR) based on a generalized estimation equation. A relative increase of 5% in age-adjusted relative risk was set a priori as relevant from a health policy perspective. RESULTS: Age-adjusted resection rates before and after the implementation of CR were 0.12 and 0.13 (Relative Risk [RR] 1.08; 95%-Confidence Interval [CI] 0.85-1.36) in esophageal cancer, 0.22 and 0.26 (RR 1.17; 95%-CI 0.85-1.58) in pancreatic cancer and 0.38 and 0.43 (RR 1.14; 95%-CI 0.99-1.30) in rectal cancer. In adjusted models OR for resection after the implementation of CR were 1.40 (95%-CI 1.24-1.58) in esophageal cancer, 1.05 (95%-CI 0.96-1.15) in pancreatic cancer and 0.92 (95%-CI 0.87-0.97) in rectal cancer. CONCLUSION: Implementation of CR was associated with an increase of resection rates above the a priori set margins in all resections groups. In adjusted models, odds for resection were significantly higher for esophageal cancer, while they remained unchanged for pancreatic and decreased for rectal cancer.

Outcomes of Complex Gastrointestinal Cancer Resection at US News & World Report Top-Ranked vs Non-Ranked Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The US News & World Report (USNWR) annual ranking of the best hospitals for gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery offers direction to patients and healthcare providers, especially for recommendations on complex medical and surgical gastrointestinal (GI) conditions. The objective of this study was to examine the outcomes of complex GI cancer resections performed at USNWR top-ranked, compared to non-ranked, hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Using the Vizient database, data for patients who underwent esophagectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreatectomy for malignancy between January and December 2018 were reviewed. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed according to USNWR rank status. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, mortality index (observed-to-expected mortality ratio), rate of serious complication, and cost. Secondary analysis was performed for outcomes of patients who developed serious complications. RESULTS: There were 3,054 complex GI cancer resections performed at 42 top-ranked hospitals vs 3,608 resections performed at 198 non-ranked hospitals. The mean annual case volume was 73 cases at top-ranked hospitals compared to 18 cases at non-ranked hospitals. Compared with non-ranked hospitals, top-ranked hospitals had lower in-hospital mortality (0.96% vs 2.26%, respectively, p < 0.001) and lower mortality index (0.71 vs 1.53, respectively). There were no significant differences in length of stay, rate of serious complications, or direct cost between groups. In patients who developed serious morbidity, top-ranked hospitals had a lower mortality compared with non-ranked hospitals (8.2% vs 16.8%, respectively, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of complex GI cancer resection, USNWR top-ranked hospitals performed a 4-fold higher case volume and were associated with improved outcomes. Patients with complex GI-related malignancies may benefit from seeking surgical care at high-volume regional USNWR top-ranked hospitals.

Esophageal cancer surgery in Greece during the era of the financial crisis.

The aim of this study is to describe outcomes of esophageal cancer surgery in a quaternary upper gastrointestinal (GI) center in Athens during the era of the Greek financial crisis. We performed a retrospective analysis of patients that underwent esophagectomy for esophageal or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer at an upper GI unit of the University of Athens, during the period January 2004-June 2019. Time-to-event analyses were performed to explore trends in survival and recurrence. A total of 146 patients were identified. Nearly half of the patients (49.3%) underwent surgery during the last 4 years of the financial crisis (2015-2018). Mean age at the time of surgery was 62.3 ± 10.3 years, and patients did not present at older ages during the recession (P = 0.50). Most patients were stage III at the time of surgery both prior to the recession (35%) and during the financial crisis (39.8%, P = 0.17). Ivor-Lewis was the most commonly performed procedure (67.1%) across all eras (P = 0.06). Gastric conduit was the most common form of GI reconstruction (95.9%) following all types of surgery (P < 0.001). Pre-recession anastomoses were usually performed using a circular stapler (65%). Both during (88.1%) and following the recession (100%), the vast majority of anastomoses were hand-sewn. R0 resection was achieved in 142 (97.9%) patients. Anastomosis technique did not affect postoperative leak (P = 0.3) or morbidity rates (P = 0.1). Morbidity rates were not significantly different prior to (25%), during (46.9%), and after (62.5%) the financial crisis, P = 0.16. Utilization of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (26.9%, P = 0.90) or radiation (8.4%, P = 0.44) as well as adjuvant chemotherapy (54.8%, P = 0.85) and irradiation (13.7%, P = 0.49) was the same across all eras. Disease-free survival (DFS) and all-cause mortality rates were 41.2 and 47.3%, respectively. Median DFS and observed survival (OS) were 11.3 and 22.7 months, respectively. The financial crisis did not influence relapse (P = 0.17) and survival rates (P = 0.91). The establishment of capital controls also had no impact on recurrence (P = 0.18) and survival (P = 0.94). Austerity measures during the Greek financial crisis did not influence long-term esophageal cancer outcomes. Therefore, achieving international standards in esophagectomy may be possible in resource-limited countries when centralizing care.

Assessment of hospital characteristics associated with improved mortality following complex upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery in Queensland.

BACKGROUND: High hospital-volume and service capability are associated with improved mortality following complex cancer surgery. Using a population-based study in Queensland, we assessed differences in mortality following oesophagectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy, comparing high- and low-volume hospitals stratified by service capability. METHODS: Data on all patients undergoing oesophagectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy for cancer in Queensland between 2001 and 2015 were obtained from the Queensland Oncology Repository. Hospital service capability was defined using the 2015 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare hospital peer groupings. Hospitals were grouped into 'high-volume (≥6 oesophagectomies or pancreaticoduodenectomies annually) with high service capability'; 'low-volume (<6) with high service capability' and 'low-volume with low service capability'. Multivariate Poisson models were used to estimate differences in 30- and 90-day mortality between hospital groups adjusting for age, sex, socioeconomic status, Charlson and American Society of Anesthesiologists scores, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, stage and time-period. RESULTS: For oesophagectomy, adjusted 90-day mortality was higher in low-volume compared with high-volume hospitals, regardless of service capability (low-volume, high service: incident rate ratio (IRR) 3.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.74-8.57; low-volume, low service: IRR 3.40, 95% CI 1.16-10.00). For pancreaticoduodenectomy, mortality was higher in low-volume compared with high-volume centres regardless of service capability: 30-day mortality (low-volume, high service: IRR 2.32, 95% CI 1.07-5.03; low-volume, low service: IRR 3.92, 95% CI 1.45-10.61); 90-day mortality (low-volume, high service: IRR 2.36, 95% CI 1.29-4.30; low-volume, low service: IRR 3.32, 95% CI 1.64-6.71). CONCLUSION: High hospital resection volumes are associated with lower post-operative mortality following oesophagectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy regardless of hospital service capability. This data supports centralization of these procedures to high-volume centres.

Association of Discretionary Hospital Volume Standards for High-risk Cancer Surgery With Patient Outcomes and Access, 2005-2016.

Importance: Various clinical societies and patient advocacy organizations continue to encourage minimum volume standards at hospitals that perform certain high-risk operations. Although many clinicians and quality and safety experts believe this can improve outcomes, the extent to which hospitals have responded to these discretionary standards remains unclear. Objective: To evaluate the association between short-term clinical outcomes and hospitals' adherence to the Leapfrog Group's minimum volume standards for high-risk cancer surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: Longitudinal cohort study using 100% of the Medicare claims for 516 392 patients undergoing pancreatic, esophageal, rectal, or lung resection for cancer between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2016. Data were accessed between December 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019. Exposures: High-risk cancer surgery in hospitals meeting and not meeting the minimum volume standards. Main Outcomes and Measures: Patients having surgery in hospitals meeting the volume standard and 30-day and in-hospital mortality and complication rates. Results: Overall, a total of 516 392 procedures (47 318 pancreatic resections, 29 812 esophageal resections, 116 383 rectal resections, and 322 879 lung resections) were included in the study, and patient mean (SD) age was 73.1 (7.5) years. Outcomes improved over time in both hospitals meeting and not meeting the minimum volume standards. Mortality after pancreatic resection decreased from 5.5% in 2005 to 4.8% in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Mortality after esophageal resection decreased from in 6.7% 2005 to 5.0% in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Mortality after rectal resection decreased from 3.6% in 2005 to 2.7 % in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Mortality after lung resection decreased from 4.2% in 2005 to 2.7 % in 2016 (P for trend <.001). Throughout the study period, there were no statistically significant differences in risk-adjusted mortality between hospitals meeting and not meeting the volume standards for esophageal, lung, and rectal cancer resections. Mortality rates after pancreatic resection were consistently lower at hospitals meeting the volume standard, although mortality at all hospitals decreased over the study period. For example, in 2016, risk-adjusted mortality rates for hospitals meeting the volume standard were 3.8% (95% CI, 3.3%-4.3%) compared with 5.7% (95% CI, 5.1%-6.5%) for hospitals that did not. Although an increasing majority of patients underwent surgery in hospitals meeting the Leapfrog volume standards over time, the overall proportion of hospitals meeting the standards in 2016 ranged from 5.6% for esophageal resection to 23.3% for pancreatic resection. Conclusions and Relevance: Although volume remains an important factor for patient safety, the Leapfrog Group's minimum volume standards did not differentiate hospitals based on mortality for 3 of the 4 high-risk cancer operations assessed, and few hospitals were able to meet these standards. These findings highlight important tradeoffs between setting effective volume thresholds and practical expectations for hospital adherence and patient access to centers that meet those standards.

Diffuse Esophageal Leiomyomatosis in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Quality of Evidence Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Diffuse esophageal leiomyomatosis (DEL) is a rare disorder characterized by benign hypertrophy of esophageal smooth muscle cells. No rigorous summary of available evidence on how to best manage these patients exists. OBJECTIVE: To define the clinical features and outcomes of pediatric patients with DEL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search of the PubMed and Cochrane databases was performed with respect to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (end-of-search date: October 6, 2018). The algorithm: "esophageal leiomyomatosis AND (children OR pediatric*)" was implemented. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies including a total of 58 patients were analyzed. The female:male ratio was 1.45:1. Mean patient age was 8.54 ± 4.67 years. The most common disease manifestations were dysphagia and gastrointestinal symptoms (90.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 78.2-96.1), followed by failure to thrive (57.9%, 95% CI: 36.2-76.9) and pulmonary symptoms (56.4%, 95% CI: 41.0-70.7). Alport syndrome (AS) was seen in 57.7% (95% CI: 44.2-70.1) of the patients. The most commonly implemented procedure was esophagectomy (85.2%; n = 46/54; 95% CI: 73.1-92.6) with gastric transposition (37.8%; n = 17/45; 95% CI: 25.1-52.4). Postoperative complications developed in 33.3% (n = 15/45; 95% CI: 21.3-48) of the patients. All-cause mortality was 7.0% (95% CI: 2.3-17.2) and disease-specific mortality was 3.5% (95% CI: 0.3-12.6). CONCLUSION: DEL is an uncommon condition that typically occurs in the setting of AS. Esophagectomy with gastric transposition is the mainstay of treatment. Although complications develop in one-third of the patients, mortality rates are low.

Postoperative outcomes of esophagectomy for cancer in elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: The number of elderly patients with esophageal cancer is expected to increase. We aimed to determine the postoperative outcomes of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer in elderly patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective, population-based analysis was performed using the National inpatient sample for the period 2000-2014. Adult patients ≥18 years old (yo) diagnosed with esophageal cancer who underwent esophagectomy during their inpatient hospitalization were included. Patients were categorized into <70 yo and ≥70 yo. Multivariable linear and logistic regressions were used to assess the potential effect of age on postoperative complications, inpatient mortality, and hospital charges. RESULTS: Overall, 5243 patients were included, with 3699 (70.6%) <70 yo and 1544 (29.5%) ≥70 yo. The yearly rate of esophagectomies among patients ≥70 yo did not significantly changed during the study period (28.4% in 2000 and 26.3% in 2014, P = 0.76). Elderly patients were significantly more likely to have postoperative cardiac failure (odds ratio 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21, 2.09, P = 0.0009) and inpatient mortality (odds ratio 1.84, 95% CI 1.39, 2.45, P < 0.0001). Among the elderly patients, hospital charges were, on average, $16,320 greater (95% CI $3110, $29,530) than patients <70 yo (P = 0.02). The predicted probability of mortality increased consistently across age (1.5% in 40 yo, 2.5% in 50 yo, 3.6% in 60 yo, 5.4% in 70 yo, and 7.0% in 80 yo). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients undergoing esophagectomy for cancer have a significantly higher risk of postoperative mortality and pose a higher financial burden on the health care system. Elderly patients with esophageal cancer should be carefully selected for surgery.

Treatment selection for esophageal cancer: evaluation from a nationwide database.

BACKGROUND: Most elderly patients poorly tolerate the standard treatment for esophageal cancer; however, little information is available regarding the appropriateness of non-standard esophageal cancer treatments for those patients. This study aims to analyze the treatment costs and completion rates of patients undergoing a real-world treatment for esophageal cancer to elucidate the treatment selection and its quality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed treatment costs and completion rates for patients with esophageal cancer and analyzed these data relative to patient age and center volumes. Patients with esophageal cancer [UICC, TMN, Clinical stage II/III (excluding T4)] who were diagnosed in 2013 were analyzed. Patients were classified into five groups defined as follows: surgical therapy, chemotherapy, concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), modified concurrent chemoradiotherapy (mCRT), and radiotherapy (RT). RESULTS: Mean and median age of patients who received surgery and CCRT were comparable; however, patients who underwent mCRT and RT tended to be older. Medical costs associated with surgery were higher than costs associated with other non-surgical treatments. Cost and completion rate of chemoradiotherapy did not differ between CCRT and mCRT; however, both had higher completion rates compared to that of RT. Surgical expenses tended to be the highest in low-volume centers and the lowest in high-volume centers. CONCLUSION: Treatment of esophageal cancer at high-volume centers seems well balanced compared with medium- to low-volume centers. mCRT was widely performed and comparable in medical cost to CCRT, although additional clinical impacts were unclear.

Innovations for Cervical Esophagogastrostomy in Thoracic Esophageal Cancer Operations.

Three-field lymph node dissection is now performed in operations for advanced thoracic esophageal cancer, with an associated improvement in outcomes. However, reconstructive surgery following resection of the esophagus is frequently associated with the occurrence of anastomotic leakage. Once it occurs, major problems can arise such as decreased quality of life, protracted hospitalization, or even death. This is why there has been a large number of innovations in and modifications to reconstructive surgery. The standard procedures in our Department for advanced thoracic esophageal cancer are subtotal esophagectomy and three-field lymph node dissection. The thin gastric tube along the greater curvature is used as the reconstructed organ in reconstructive surgery, performing a cervical esophagogastrostomy. Innovations have been made to reconstructive surgery in order to prevent anastomotic leakage. This procedure markedly reduces anastomotic leakage, and also reduces anastomotic stricture, which likely makes it an extremely useful procedure that any surgeon can perform.

Treatment utilization and outcomes in elderly patients with locally advanced esophageal carcinoma: a review of the National Cancer Database.

For elderly patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer, therapeutic approaches and outcomes in a modern cohort are not well characterized. Patients ≥70 years old with clinical stage II and III esophageal cancer diagnosed between 1998 and 2012 were identified from the National Cancer Database and stratified based on treatment type. Variables associated with treatment utilization were evaluated using logistic regression and survival evaluated using Cox proportional hazards analysis. Propensity matching (1:1) was performed to help account for selection bias. A total of 21,593 patients were identified. Median and maximum ages were 77 and 90, respectively. Treatment included palliative therapy (24.3%), chemoradiation (37.1%), trimodality therapy (10.0%), esophagectomy alone (5.6%), or no therapy (12.9%). Age ≥80 (OR 0.73), female gender (OR 0.81), Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score ≥2 (OR 0.82), and high-volume centers (OR 0.83) were associated with a decreased likelihood of palliative therapy versus no treatment. Age ≥80 (OR 0.79) and Clinical Stage III (OR 0.33) were associated with a decreased likelihood, while adenocarcinoma histology (OR 1.33) and nonacademic cancer centers (OR 3.9), an increased likelihood of esophagectomy alone compared to definitive chemoradiation. Age ≥80 (OR 0.15), female gender (OR 0.80), and non-Caucasian race (OR 0.63) were associated with a decreased likelihood, while adenocarcinoma histology (OR 2.10) and high-volume centers (OR 2.34), an increased likelihood of trimodality therapy compared to definitive chemoradiation. Each treatment type demonstrated improved survival compared to no therapy: palliative treatment (HR 0.49) to trimodality therapy (HR 0.25) with significance between all groups. Any therapy, including palliative care, was associated with improved survival; however, subsets of elderly patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer are less likely to receive aggressive therapy. Care should be taken to not unnecessarily deprive these individuals of treatment that may improve survival.

[Economic aspects of oncological esophageal surgery : Centralization is essential]. / Ökonomische Aspekte der onkologischen Ösophaguschirurgie : Zentralisierung ist essenziell.

The incidence of esophageal carcinoma has increased in recent years in Germany. The aim of this article is a discussion of the economic aspects of oncological esophageal surgery within the German diagnosis-related groups (DRG) system focusing on the association between minimum caseload requirements and outcome quality as well as costs. The margins for the DRG classification G03A are low and quickly exhausted if complications determine the postoperative course. A current study using nationwide German hospital discharge data proved a significant difference in hospital mortality between clinics with and without achieving the minimum caseload requirements for esophagectomy. Data from the USA clearly showed that besides patient-relevant parameters, the caseload of a surgeon is relevant for the cost of treatment. Such cost-related analyses do not exist in Germany at present. Scientific validation of reliable minimum caseload numbers for oncological esophagectomy is desirable in the future.

Impact of a Fast-track Esophagectomy Protocol on Esophageal Cancer Patient Outcomes and Hospital Charges.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of a fast-track esophagectomy protocol (FTEP) on esophageal cancer patients' safety, length of hospital stay (LOS), and hospital charges. BACKGROUND: FTEP involved transferring patients to the telemetry unit instead of the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) after esophagectomy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 708 consecutive patients who underwent esophagectomy for primary esophageal cancer during the 4 years before (group A; 322 patients) or 4 years after (group B; 386 patients) the institution of an FTEP. Postoperative morbidity and mortality, LOS, and hospital charges were reviewed. RESULTS: Compared with group A, group B had significantly shorter median LOS (12 days vs 8 days; P < 0.001); lower mean numbers of SICU days (4.5 days vs 1.2 days; P < 0.001) and telemetry days (12.7 days vs 9.7 days; P < 0.001); and lower rates of atrial arrhythmia (27% vs 19%; P = 0.013) and pulmonary complications (27% vs 20%; P = 0.016). Multivariable analysis revealed FTEP to be associated with shorter LOS (P < 0.001) even after adjustment for predictors like tumor histology and location. FTEP was also associated with a lower rate of pulmonary complications (odds ratio = 0.655; 95% confidence interval = 0.456, 0.942; P = 0.022). In addition, the median hospital charges associated with primary admission and readmission within 90 days for group B ($65,649) were lower than that for group A ($79,117; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that an FTEP reduces patients' LOS, perioperative morbidity, and hospital charges.

Composite measures for rating hospital quality with major surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the value of a novel composite measure for identifying the best hospitals for major procedures. DATA SOURCE: We used national Medicare data for patients undergoing five high-risk surgical procedures between 2005 and 2008. STUDY DESIGN: For each procedure, we used empirical Bayes techniques to create a composite measure combining hospital volume, risk-adjusted mortality with the procedure of interest, risk-adjusted mortality with other related procedures, and other variables. Hospitals were ranked based on 2005-2006 data and placed in one of three groups: 1-star (bottom 20 percent), 2-star (middle 60 percent), and 3-star (top 20 percent). We assessed how well these ratings forecasted risk-adjusted mortality rates in the next 2 years (2007-2008), compared to other measures. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: For all five procedures, the composite measures based on 2005-2006 data performed well in predicting future hospital performance. Compared to 1-star hospitals, risk-adjusted mortality was much lower at 3-star hospitals for esophagectomy (6.7 versus 14.4 percent), pancreatectomy (4.7 versus 9.2 percent), coronary artery bypass surgery (2.6 versus 5.0 percent), aortic valve replacement (4.5 versus 8.5 percent), and percutaneous coronary interventions (2.4 versus 4.1 percent). Compared to individual surgical quality measures, the composite measures were better at forecasting future risk-adjusted mortality. These measures also outperformed the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Compare ratings. CONCLUSION: Composite measures of surgical quality are very effective at predicting hospital mortality rates with major procedures. Such measures would be more informative than existing quality indicators in helping patients and payers identify high-quality hospitals with specific procedures.

Esophagectomy outcomes at low-volume hospitals: the association between systems characteristics and mortality.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between systems characteristics and esophagectomy mortality at low-volume hospitals BACKGROUND: High-volume hospitals have lower esophagectomy mortality rates, but receiving care at such centers is not always feasible. We examined low-volume hospitals and sought to identify characteristics of those with better outcomes. METHODS: Using national data from Medicare and the American Hospital Association, we studied 4498 elderly patients who underwent an esophagectomy from 2004 to 2007. We divided hospitals into terciles based on esophagectomy volume and examined characteristics of patients and hospitals (size, nurse ratios, and presence of advanced medical, surgical, and radiological services). Our primary outcome was mortality. We identified 5 potentially beneficial systems characteristics in our data set and used multivariable logistic regression to determine whether these characteristics were associated with lower mortality rates at low-volume hospitals. RESULTS: Of the 874 hospitals that performed esophagectomies, 83% (723) were low-volume hospitals whereas only 3% (25) were high-volume. Low-volume hospitals performed a median of 1 esophagectomy during the 4-year study period and cared for patients that were older, more likely to be minority, and more likely to have multiple comorbidities compared with high-volume centers. Low-volume hospitals that had at least 3 of 5 characteristics (high nurse ratios, lung transplantation services, complex medical oncology services, bariatric surgery services, and positron emission tomography scanners) had markedly lower mortality rates compared with low-volume hospitals with none of these characteristics (12.5% vs. 5.0%; P value = 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: Low-volume hospitals with certain systems characteristics seem to achieve better esophagectomy outcomes. A more comprehensive study of the beneficial characteristics of low-volume hospitals is warranted because high-volume hospitals are difficult to access for many patients.

Surgery for oesophageal cancer at Galway University Hospital 1993-2008.

BACKGROUND: Surgical volume and outcome remain controversial in the management of oesophageal cancer. AIMS: To assess the outcome of oesophagectomy for cancer at Galway University Hospital (GUH). METHODS: Between 1994 and 2008, patients who underwent oesophagectomy were analysed. RESULTS: During the study period, 126 oesophagectomies were performed for cancer. The average surgeon volume was 9 cases per year. The 30-day and overall in-hospital mortality rates were 6.3 and 7.9%, respectively. Restructuring of our critical care services has led to a reduction in 30-day mortality from 8.2 to 5.1%. The use of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy has increased from 17 to 35% during the study period. In patients who underwent resection, the 3 and 5-year overall survival rates were 45 and 29%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Operative morbidity and mortality at GUH are comparable with worldwide outcomes. Improved resources and national restructuring of cancer services have significantly improved the quality of care and outcomes of patients.

Systematic review of the impact of volume of oesophagectomy on patient outcome.

PURPOSE: This systematic review aims to assess whether overall survival, mortality, morbidity, length of stay and cost of performing oesophagectomy are related to surgical volume. METHODS: A systematic search strategy from 1997 until December 2006 was used to retrieve relevant studies. Inclusion of articles was established through application of a predetermined protocol, independent assessment by two reviewers and a final consensus decision. RESULTS: A total of 55 studies were identified of which 27 studies, representing 68 882 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one of these solely examined hospital volume, 5 examined both hospital and surgeon volume, and 1 examined surgeon volume in isolation. All but one of the studies were retrospective in nature, and because of the heterogeneity of the literature, no meta-analysis could be performed. Of the studies exploring the relationship between hospital volume and mortality, 20 reported a statistically significant benefit to large volume centres. Five of six included studies showed significant evidence for a reduced mortality risk with greater surgeon volume. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence from these retrospective studies, oesophagectomy performed in high volume centres would appear to be associated with better outcome compared with low volume centres.

Misclassification of hospital volume with Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Medicare data.

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)- Medicare data are frequently used for studying relationships between volume and outcomes after cancer surgery; however, because patients often cross SEER boundaries for treatment, SEER-Medicare data may misclassify hospital volume. Thus, we measured the agreement of hospital volume as determined by SEER-Medicare and 100% national Medicare data and determined the extent to which misclassification alters the apparent relationship between volume and operative mortality. This is a retrospective cohort study of SEER-Medicare patients undergoing a major cancer surgery for colon, lung, bladder, and esophageal cancers between 1994 and 1999. Hospital procedure volumes were assessed with both SEER-Medicare and 100% national Medicare data and sorted into terciles. Logistic regression models were fit using generalized estimating equations to assess associations between mortality and volume, as determined from each data source. Compared with 100% Medicare data, SEER-Medicare data misclassified 13% (colectomy) to 36% (esophagectomy) of patients; however, fewer than 3% of patients were misclassified by more than 1 volume stratum. For cystectomy, the apparent association between volume and mortality was relatively weak and not statistically significant based on SEER-Medicare data (adjusted odds ratio, low vs high volume 1.41, 95% confidence interval, 0.89-2.23), but stronger and significant when volume was obtained from 100% Medicare data (odds ratio, 1.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.17 to 2.84). For the other 3 procedures, apparent volume/outcome relationships were similar when volume was assessed from the 2 data sources. Hospital volumes are frequently misclassified with SEER-Medicare data. Such misclassification generally biases volume/outcome associations toward the null, but this effect seems to be small for many procedures. Investigators should be cognizant of this bias and exercise caution when interpreting these relationships when using SEER-Medicare data alone.

Small rural hospitals and high-risk operations: how would regionalization affect surgical volume and hospital revenue?

BACKGROUND: Because higher hospital procedure volume is associated with better outcomes for many high-risk procedures, regionalization to higher-volume hospitals has been proposed as a way to improve quality of surgical care. The potential impact of such policies on small rural hospital volume and revenue is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: We identified all hospitalizations in small rural hospitals (less than 50 beds) in New York State from 1998 to 2001 that included an ICD-9 procedure code for 1 of 9 procedures for which there is a documented volume-outcomes association: abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, aortic-valve replacement, carotid endarterectomy, colectomy, coronary artery bypass, cystectomy, esophagectomy, pancreatectomy, or pulmonary resection. Revenue from these procedures was estimated using gross charges and payor-specific reimbursement rates. We then compared these estimates with total hospital inpatient revenue for each rural hospital. RESULTS: We identified 14 small rural hospitals where at least one of the nine procedures was performed. All included hospitalizations for colectomy. Aortic aneurysm repairs, cystectomies, and pancreatectomies were performed in three hospitals; carotid endarterectomy in two; and esophagectomy in one. In no hospitals were cardiac procedures or pulmonary resections performed. Estimated average contribution to hospital net revenue for all 9 procedures was approximately 2%, nearly all attributable to colectomy. CONCLUSIONS: If all aortic aneurysm repairs, major cardiothoracic procedures, carotid endarterectomies, cystectomies, and pancreatectomies in New York State were regionalized to higher-volume hospitals, no small rural hospitals would experience substantial impact in terms of rural hospital procedure volume and revenue. Even regionalization of colectomy would have a small impact on inpatient volume and revenue.