Association of hospital volume and operative approach with clinical and financial outcomes of elective esophagectomy in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Literature regarding the impact of esophagectomy approach on hospitalizations costs and short-term outcomes is limited. Moreover, few have examined how institutional MIS experience affects costs. We thus examined utilization trends, costs, and short-term outcomes of open and minimally invasive (MIS) esophagectomy as well as assessing the relationship between institutional MIS volume and hospitalization costs. METHODS: All adults undergoing elective esophagectomy were identified from the 2016-2020 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Multiple regression models were used to assess approach with costs, in-hospital mortality, and major complications. Additionally, annual hospital MIS esophagectomy volume was modeled as a restricted cubic spline against costs. Institutions performing > 16 cases/year corresponding with the inflection point were categorized as high-volume hospitals (HVH). We subsequently examined the association of HVH status with costs, in-hospital mortality, and major complications in patients undergoing minimally invasive esophagectomy. RESULTS: Of an estimated 29,116 patients meeting inclusion, 10,876 (37.4%) underwent MIS esophagectomy. MIS approaches were associated with $10,600 in increased incremental costs (95% CI 8,800-12,500), but lower odds of in-hospital mortality (AOR 0.76; 95% CI 0.61-0.96) or major complications (AOR 0.68; 95% CI 0.60, 0.77). Moreover, HVH status was associated with decreased adjusted costs, as well as lower odds of postoperative complications for patients undergoing MIS operations. CONCLUSION: In this nationwide study, MIS esophagectomy was associated with increased hospitalization costs, but improved short-term outcomes. In MIS operations, cost differences were mitigated by volume, as HVH status was linked with decreased costs in the setting of decreased odds of complications. Centralization of care to HVH centers should be considered as MIS approaches are increasingly utilized.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of hospital treatment volume and survival outcomes in endometrial cancer in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: Hospital treatment volume affects survival in patients with endometrial cancer; notably, initial treatment at high-volume centers improves survival outcomes. Our study assessed the effect of hospital treatment volume on cost-effectiveness and survival outcomes in patients with endometrial cancer in Japan. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was evaluated using the following variables and their impact on cost-effectiveness: 1) hospital treatment volume (low-, intermediate-, and high-volume centers) and 2) postoperative recurrent risk factors based on pathological findings (high- and intermediate-risk or low-risk). Data were obtained from the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology database, systematic literature searches, and the Japanese Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. Quality-adjusted life years (QALY) was used as a measure of effectiveness. The model was built from a public healthcare perspective and the impact of uncertainty was assessed using sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: A base-case analysis showed that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio at high-volume centers was below a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of ¥5,000,000 with a maximum of ¥3,777,830/4.28 QALY for the high- and intermediate-risk group, and ¥2,316,695/4.57 QALY for the low-risk group. Treatment at the high-volume centers showed better efficiency and cost-effectiveness in both strategies compared to intermediate- or low-volume centers. Sensitivity analyses showed that the model outcome was robust to changes in input values. With the WTP threshold, treatment at high-volume centers remained cost-effective in at least 73.6% and 78.2% of iterations for high- and intermediate-risk, and low-risk groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Treatment at high-volume centers is the most cost-effective strategy for guiding treatment centralization in patients with endometrial cancer.

The role of the surgical volume for clinical outcomes in VATS lobectomy for lung cancer: a national large database multicenter analysis.

Improving the quality of lung cancer care at a cost that can be sustained is a hotly debated issue. High-risk, low-volume procedures (such as lung resections) are believed to improve significantly when centralised in high-volume centres. However, limited evidence exists to support volume requirements in lung cancer surgery. On the other hand, there was no evidence that the number of lung resections affected either the short-term perioperative results or the long-term cost. Using data from an extensive nationwide registry, this study investigated the correlations between surgical volumes and selected perioperative outcomes. A retrospective analysis of a prospectively filled national registry that follows stringent quality assurance and security procedures was conducted to ensure data accuracy and security. Patients who underwent VATS lobectomy from 2014 to 2019 at the participating centres were included. Selected perioperative outcomes were reported. Total direct hospital cost is measured at discharge for hospitalisations with a primary diagnosis of lung cancer, hospital stay costs, and postoperative length of hospital stay after lobectomy. After the propensity score matched, centres were divided into three groups according to the surgical volume of the unit where VATS lobectomies were performed (high-volume centre: > 500 lobectomies; medium-volume centre: 200-500 lobectomies; low-volume centre: < 200 lobectomies). 11,347 patients were included and matched (low-volume center = 2890; medium-volume center = 3147; high-volume center = 2907). The mean operative time density plot (Fig. 1A) showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.67). In contrast, the density plot of the harvested lymph nodes (Fig. 1B) showed significantly higher values in the high-volume centres (p = 0.045), albeit without being clinically significant. The adjusted rates of any and significant complications were higher in the low-volume centre (p = 0.034) without significantly affecting the length of hospital stay (p = 0.57). VATS lobectomies for lung cancer in higher-volume centres seem associated with a statistically significantly higher number of harvested lymph nodes and lower perioperative complications, yet without any significant impact in terms of costs and resource consumption. These findings may advise the investigation of the learning curve effect in a complete economic evaluation of VATS lobectomy in lung cancer. Fig. 1 The mean operative time density plot showed no statistically significant difference (p = 0.67).

Health System Structure: An Opportunity to Address Structural Racism and Discrimination.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the role of hub-and-spoke systems as a factor in structural racism and discrimination. BACKGROUND: Health systems are often organized in a "hub-and-spoke" manner to centralize complex surgical care to 1 high-volume hospital. Although the surgical health care disparities are well described across health care systems, it is not known how they seem across a single system's hospitals. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent 1 of 10 general surgery operations in 12 geographically diverse states (2016-2018) were identified using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's State Inpatient Databases. System status was assigned using the American Hospital Association dataset. Hub designation was assigned in 2 ways: (1) the hospital performing the most complex operations (general hub) or (2) the hospital performing the most of each specific operation (procedure-specific hub). Independent multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the risk-adjusted odds of treatment at hubs by race and ethnicity. RESULTS: We identified 122,236 patients across 133 hospitals in 43 systems. Most patients were White (73.4%), 14.2% were Black, and 12.4% Hispanic. A smaller proportion of Black and Hispanic patient underwent operations at general hubs compared with White patients (B: 59.6% H: 52.0% W: 62.0%, P <0.001). After adjustment, Black and Hispanic patients were less likely to receive care at hub hospitals relative to White patients for common and complex operations (general hub B: odds ratio: 0.88 CI, 0.85, 0.91 H: OR: 0.82 CI, 0.79, 0.85). CONCLUSIONS: When White, Black, and Hispanic patients seek care at hospital systems, Black and Hispanic patients are less likely to receive treatment at hub hospitals. Given the published advantages of high-volume care, this new finding may highlight an opportunity in the pursuit of health equity.

Association of the Affordable Care Act with access to highest-volume centers for patients with thyroid cancer.

BACKGROUND: Disparities exist in access to high-volume surgeons, who have better outcomes after thyroidectomy. The association of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion with access to high-volume thyroid cancer surgery centers remains unclear. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for all adult thyroid cancer patients diagnosed from 2010 to 2016. Hospital quartiles (Q1-4) defined by operative volume were generated. Clinicodemographics and adjusted odds ratios for treatment per quartile were analyzed by insurance status. An adjusted difference-in-differences analysis examined the association between implementation of the Affordable Care Act and changes in payer mix by hospital quartile. RESULTS: In total, 241,448 patients were included. Medicaid patients were most commonly treated at Q3-Q4 hospitals (Q3 odds ratios 1.05, P = .020, Q4 1.11, P < .001), whereas uninsured patients were most often treated at Q2-Q4 hospitals (Q2 odds ratios 2.82, Q3 2.34, Q4 2.07, P < .001). After expansion, Medicaid patients had lower odds of surgery at Q3-Q4 compared with Q1 hospitals (odds ratios Q3 0.82, P < .001 Q4 0.85, P = .002) in expansion states, but higher odds of treatment at Q3-Q4 hospitals in nonexpansion states (odds ratios Q3 2.23, Q4 1.86, P < .001). Affordable Care Act implementation was associated with increased proportions of Medicaid patients within each quartile in expansion compared with nonexpansion states (Q1 adjusted difference-in-differences 5.36%, Q2 5.29%, Q3 3.68%, Q4 3.26%, P < .001), and a decrease in uninsured patients treated at Q4 hospitals (adjusted difference-in-differences -1.06%, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion was associated with an increased proportion of Medicaid patients undergoing thyroidectomy for thyroid cancer in all quartiles, with increased Medicaid access to high-volume centers in expansion compared with nonexpansion states.

The Impact of Plastic Surgery Volume on Inpatient Burn Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Acute burn care involves multiple types of physicians. Plastic surgery offers the full spectrum of acute burn care and reconstructive surgery. The authors hypothesize that access to plastic surgery will be associated with improved inpatient outcomes in the treatment of acute burns. METHODS: Acute burn encounters with known percentage total body surface area were extracted from the National Inpatient Sample from 2012 to 2014 based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, codes. Plastic surgery volume per facility was determined based on procedure codes for flaps, breast reconstruction, and complex hand reconstruction. Outcomes included odds of receiving a flap, patient safety indicators, and mortality. Regression models included the following variables: age, percentage total body surface area, gender, inhalation injury, comorbidities, hospital size, and urban/teaching status of hospital. RESULTS: The weighted sample included 99,510 burn admissions with a mean percentage total body surface area of 15.5 percent. The weighted median plastic surgery volume by facility was 245 cases per year. Compared with the lowest quartile, the upper three quartiles of plastic surgery volume were associated with increased likelihood of undergoing flap procedures (p < 0.03). The top quartile of plastic surgery volume was also associated with decreased odds of patient safety indicator events (p < 0.001). Plastic surgery facility volume was not significantly associated with a difference in the likelihood of inpatient death. CONCLUSIONS: Burn encounters treated at high-volume plastic surgery facilities were more likely to undergo flap operations. High-volume plastic surgery centers were also associated with a lower likelihood of inpatient complications. Therefore, where feasible, acute burn patients should be triaged to high-volume centers. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

Medicare Advantage Networks and Access to High-volume Cancer Surgery Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how Medicare Advantage (MA) health plan networks impact access to high-volume hospitals for cancer surgery. BACKGROUND: Cancer surgery at high-volume hospitals is associated with better short- and long-term outcomes. In the United States, health insurance is a major detriment to seeking care at high-volume hospitals. A third of older (>65 years) Americans are enrolled in privatized MA health plans. The impact of MA plan networks on access to high-volume surgery hospitals is unknown. METHODS: We analyzed in-network hospitals for MA plans offered in Los Angeles county during open enrollment of 2015. For the purposes of this analysis, MA network data from provider directories were linked to hospital volume data from California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. Volume thresholds were based on published literature. RESULTS: A total of 34 MA plans enrolled 554,754 beneficiaries in Los Angeles county during 2014 open enrollment for coverage starting in 2015 (MA penetration ∼43%). The proportion of MA plans that included high-volume cancer surgery hospital varied by the type of cancer surgery. While most plans (>71%) included at least one high-volume hospital for colon, rectum, lung, and stomach; 59% to 82% of MA plans did not include any high-volume hospitals for liver, esophagus, or pancreatic surgery. A significant proportion of beneficiaries in MA plans did not have access to high-volume hospitals for esophagus (93%), stomach (44%), liver (39%), or pancreas (70%) surgery. In contrast, nearly all MA beneficiaries had access to at least one high-volume hospital for lung (93%), colon (100%), or rectal (100%) surgery. Overall, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services plan rating or plan popularity were not correlated with access to high-volume hospital (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The study identifies lack of high-volume hospital coverage in MA health plans as a major detriment in regionalization of cancer surgery impacting at least a third of older Americans.

Comparison of Cap-Assisted vs Conventional Endoscopic Technique for Management of Food Bolus Impaction in the Esophagus: Results of a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: "Push" or "pull" techniques with the use of snares, forceps, baskets, and grasping devices are conventionally used to manage esophageal food bolus impaction (FBI). A novel cap-assisted technique has recently been advocated to reduce time taken for food bolus (FB) removal. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the cap-assisted technique against conventional methods of esophageal FB removal in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: Consecutive patients with esophageal FBI requiring endoscopic removal, from 3 Australian tertiary hospitals between 2017 and 2019, were randomized to either the cap-assisted technique or the conventional technique. Primary outcomes were technical success and FB retrieval time. Secondary outcomes were technical success rate, en bloc removal rate, procedure-related complication, length of hospital stay, and cost of consumables. RESULTS: Over 24 months, 342 patients with esophageal FBI were randomized to a cap-assisted (n = 171) or conventional (n = 171) technique. Compared with the conventional approach, the cap-assisted technique was associated with (i) shorter FB retrieval time (4.5 ± 0.5 minutes vs 21.7 ± 0.9 minutes, P < 0.001), (ii) shorter total procedure time (23.0 ± 0.6 minutes vs 47.0 ± 1.3 minutes, P < 0.0001), (iii) higher technical success rate (170/171 vs 160/171, P < 0.001), (iv) higher rate of en bloc removal (159/171 vs 48/171, P < 0.001), and (v) lower rate of procedure-related mucosal tear and bleeding (0/171 vs 13/171, P < 0.001). There were no major adverse events or deaths within 30 days in either group. The total cost of consumables was higher in the conventional group (A$19,644.90 vs A$6,239.90). DISCUSSION: This multicenter randomized controlled trial confirmed that the cap-assisted technique is more effective and less costly than the conventional approach and should be first-line treatment for esophageal FBI.

Assessment of Racial Disparities in the Risks of Septic and Aseptic Revision Total Knee Replacements.

Importance: Black patients are at higher risk of revision total knee replacement (TKR) than White patients, but whether racial disparities exist for both septic and aseptic revision TKR and the reason for any disparities are unknown. Objective: To assess the risk of septic and aseptic revision TKR in Black and White patients and to examine interactions among race and socioeconomic and hospital-related variables that are associated with revision TKR risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included residents of New York, California, and Florida who underwent TKR. Patient-level data were obtained from the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System, California's Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development Patient Discharge Database, and Florida's Healthcare Utilization Project State Inpatient Database from January 1, 2004, to December 31, 2014. Community characteristics were calculated from the US Census and linked to discharges by patient zip code. American Hospital Association Annual Survey data were linked to discharges using hospital identifiers. The analyses were performed from March 1 to October 30, 2020, with subsequent analyses in April 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cox proportional hazards regression modeling was used to measure the association of race with septic and aseptic revision TKR. Results: A total of 722 492 patients underwent primary TKR, of whom 445 616 (61.68%) were female and 61 092 (8.46%) were Black. Black patients were at higher risk of septic (hazard ratio [HR], 1.11; 95% CI, 1.03-1.20) and aseptic (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.33-1.46) revision TKR compared with White patients. Other risk factors for septic revision TKR were diabetes (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.17-1.30), obesity (HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.17-1.30), kidney disease (HR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.29-1.57), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.15-1.30), inflammatory arthritis (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.39-1.69), surgical site complications during the index TKR (HR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.87-2.56), Medicaid insurance (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04-1.31), and low annual TKR volume at the hospital where the index TKR was performed (HR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.41-1.68). Risk factors for aseptic revision TKR were male sex (HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00-1.06), workers' compensation insurance (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.51-1.72), and low hospital TKR volume (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.07-1.22). Patients with obesity had a lower risk of aseptic TKR revision (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.77-0.84). In an analysis within each category of hospital TKR volume, the HR for aseptic revision among Black vs White patients was 1.20 (95% CI, 1.04-1.37) at very-low-volume hospitals (≤89 TKRs annually) compared with 1.68 (95% CI, 1.48-1.90) at very-high-volume hospitals (≥645 TKRs annually). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, Black patients were at significantly higher risk of aseptic revision TKR and, to a lesser extent, septic revision TKR compared with White patients. Racial disparities in aseptic revision risk were greatest at hospitals with very high TKR volumes.

ACA Medicaid expansion reduced disparities in use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Early evaluation of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion demonstrated persistent disparities among Medicaid beneficiaries in use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery. Longer-term effects of expansion remain unknown. This study evaluated the impact of expansion on the use of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery among Medicaid and uninsured patients. METHODS: State inpatient databases (2012-2017), the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database, and the Area Resource File from the Health Resources and Services Administration, were used to examine 8,264 non-elderly adults who underwent pancreatic surgery in nine expansion and two non-expansion states. High-volume hospitals were defined as performing 20 or more resections/year. Linear probability triple differences models measured pre- and post-Affordable Care Act utilization rates of pancreatic surgery at high-volume hospitals among Medicaid and uninsured patients versus privately insured patients in expansion versus non-expansion states. RESULTS: The Affordable Care Act's expansion was associated with increased rates of utilization of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery by Medicaid and uninsured patients (48% vs 55.4%, P = .047) relative to privately insured patients in expansion states (triple difference estimate +11.7%, P = .022). A pre-Affordable Care Act gap in use of high-volume hospitals among Medicaid and uninsured patients in expansion states versus non-expansion states (48% vs 77%, P < .0001) was reduced by 15.1% (P = .001) post Affordable Care Act. A pre Affordable Care Act gap between expansion versus non-expansion states was larger for Medicaid and uninsured patients relative to privately insured patients by 24.9% (P < .0001) and was reduced by 11.7% (P = .022) post Affordable Care Act. Rates among privately insured patients remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion was associated with greater utilization of high-volume hospitals for pancreatic surgery among Medicaid and uninsured patients. These findings are informative to non-expansion states considering expansion. Future studies should target understanding referral mechanism post-expansion.

Disparities in Access to High-Volume Surgeons Within High-Volume Hospitals for Hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To examine access to high-volume surgeons in comparison with low-volume surgeons who perform hysterectomies within high-volume hospitals and to compare perioperative morbidity and mortality between high-volume and low-volume surgeons within these centers. METHODS: Women who underwent hysterectomy in New York State between 2000 and 2014 at a high-volume (top quartile by volume) hospital were included. Surgeons were classified into quartiles based on average annual hysterectomy volume. Multivariable models were used to determine characteristics associated with treatment by a low-volume surgeon in comparison with a high-volume surgeon and to estimate the association between physician volume, and morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 300,586 patients cared for by 5,505 surgeons at 59 hospitals were identified. Women treated by low-volume surgeons, in comparison with high-volume surgeons, were more often Black (19.4% vs 14.3%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.26; 95% CI 1.09-1.46) and had Medicare insurance (20.6% vs 14.5%; aOR 1.22; 95% CI 1.04-1.42). Low-volume surgeons were more likely to perform both emergent-urgent procedures (26.1% vs 6.4%; aOR 3.91; 95% CI 3.26-4.69) and abdominal hysterectomy, compared with minimally invasive hysterectomy (77.8% vs 54.7%; aOR 1.91; 95% CI 1.62-2.24). Compared with patients cared for by high-volume surgeons, those operated on by low-volume surgeons had increased risk of a complication (31.0% vs 10.3%; adjusted risk ratios [aRR] 1.84; 95% CI 1.71-1.98) and mortality (2.2% vs 0.2%; aRR 3.04; 95% CI 2.20-4.21). In sensitivity analyses, differences in morbidity and mortality remained for emergent-urgent procedures, elective operations, cancer surgery, and noncancer procedures. CONCLUSION: Socioeconomic disparities remain in access to high-volume surgeons within high-volume hospitals for hysterectomy. Patients who undergo hysterectomy at a high-volume hospital by a low-volume surgeon are at substantially greater risk for perioperative morbidity and mortality.

Socio-economic factors do not affect overall survival in soft tissue sarcoma when patients treated at a single high-volume center.

BACKGROUND: Treatments for soft tissue sarcoma (STS) include extensive surgical resection, radiation and chemotherapy, and can necessitate specialized care and excellent social support. Studies have demonstrated that socioeconomic factors, such as income, marital status, urban/rural residence, and educational attainment as well as treatment at high-volume institution may be associated with overall survival (OS) in STS. METHODS: In order to explore the effect of socio-economic factors on OS in patients treated at a high-volume center, we performed a retrospective analysis of STS patients treated at a single institution. RESULTS: Overall, 435 patients were included. Thirty-seven percent had grade 3 tumors and 44% had disease larger than 5 cm. Patients were most commonly privately insured (38%), married (67%) and retired or unemployed (43%). Median distance from the treatment center was 42 miles and median area deprivation index (ADI) was 5 (10 representing most deprived communities). The majority of patients (52%) were treated with neoadjuvant therapy followed by resection. As expected, higher tumor grade (HR 3.1), tumor size > 5 cm (HR 1.3), and involved lymph nodes (HR 3.2) were significantly associated with OS on multivariate analysis. Demographic and socioeconomic factors, including sex, age at diagnosis, marital status, employment status, urban vs. rural location, income, education, distance to the treatment center, and ADI were not associated with OS. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to prior studies, we did not identify a significant association between socioeconomic factors and OS of patients with STS when patients were treated at a single high-volume center. Treatment at a high volume institution may mitigate the importance of socio-economic factors in the OS of STS.

Optimal surgeon and hospital volume thresholds to reduce mortality and length of stay for CABG.

OBJECTIVE: We used nationwide population-based data to identify optimal hospital and surgeon volume thresholds and to discover the effects of these volume thresholds on operative mortality and length of stay (LOS) for coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: General acute care hospitals throughout Taiwan. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 12,892 CABG patients admitted between 2011 and 2015 were extracted from Taiwan National Health Insurance claims data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Operative mortality and LOS. Restricted cubic splines were applied to discover the optimal hospital and surgeon volume thresholds needed to reduce operative mortality. Generalized estimating equation regression modeling, Cox proportional-hazards modeling and instrumental variables analysis were employed to examine the effects of hospital and surgeon volume thresholds on the operative mortality and LOS. RESULTS: The volume thresholds for hospitals and surgeons were 55 cases and 5 cases per year, respectively. Patients who underwent CABG from hospitals that did not reach the volume threshold had higher operative mortality than those who received CABG from hospitals that did reach the volume threshold. Patients who underwent CABG with surgeons who did not reach the volume threshold had higher operative mortality and LOS than those who underwent CABG with surgeons who did reach the volume threshold. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to identify the optimal hospital and surgeon volume thresholds for reducing operative mortality and LOS. This supports policies regionalizing CABG at high-volume hospitals. Identifying volume thresholds could help patients, providers, and policymakers provide optimal care.

Impact of hospital volume on resource use after elective cardiac surgery: A contemporary analysis.

BACKGROUND: Institutional experience has been associated with reduced mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting and valve operations. Using a contemporary, national cohort, we examined the impact of hospital volume on hospitalization costs and postdischarge resource utilization after these operations. METHODS: Adults undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting or valve operations were identified in the 2016 to 2017 Nationwide Readmissions Database. Institutions were grouped into volume quartiles based on annual elective cardiac surgery caseload, and comparisons were made between the lowest and highest quartiles, using generalized linear models. RESULTS: Of an estimated 296,510 patients, 24.8% were treated at low-volume hospitals and 25.2% at high-volume hospitals. Compared with patients treated at low-volume hospitals, patients managed at high-volume hospitals were younger, had more comorbidities, and more frequently underwent combined coronary artery bypass grafting valve (13.0% vs 12.3%, P < .001) and multivalve operations (6.2% vs 3.1%, P < .001). After adjustment, operations at high-volume hospitals were associated with a $7,600 reduction (95% confidence interval $4,700-$10,500) in costs. High-volume hospitals were also associated with reduced odds of mortality, non-home discharge, and 30-day non-elective readmission compared to low-volume hospitals. CONCLUSION: Despite increased complexity at high-volume centers, greater operative volume was independently associated with reduced hospitalization costs and mortality after elective cardiac operations. Reduction in non-home discharge and readmissions suggests this effect to extend beyond acute hospitalization, which may guide value-based care paradigms.

Hospital volume is associated with cost and outcomes variation in 2,942 pelvic reconstructions.

BACKGROUND: Complex pelvic reconstruction is challenging for plastic and reconstructive surgeons following surgical resection of the lower gastrointestinal or genitourinary tract. Complication rates and hospital costs are variable and may be linked to the hospital case volume of pelvic reconstructions performed. A comprehensive examination of these factors has yet to be performed. METHODS: Data were retrieved for patients undergoing pedicled flap reconstruction after pelvic resections in the American National Inpatient Sample database between 2010 and 2014. Patients were then separated into three groups based on hospital case volume for pelvic reconstruction. Multivariate logistic regression and gamma regression with log-link function were used to analyze associations between hospital case volume, surgical outcomes, and cost. RESULTS: In total, 2,942 patients underwent pelvic flap reconstruction with surgical complications occurring in 1,466 patients (49.8%). Total median cost was $38,469.40. Pelvic reconstructions performed at high-volume hospitals were significantly associated with fewer surgical complications (low: 51.4%, medium: 52.8%, high: 34.8%; p < 0.001) and increased costs (low: $35,645.14, medium: $38,714.92, high: $44,967.29; p < 0.001). After regression adjustment, high hospital volume was the strongest independently associated factor for decreased surgical complications (Exp[ß], 0.454; 95% Confidence Interval, 0.346-0.596; p < 0.001) and increased hospital cost (Exp[ß], 1.351; 95% Confidence Interval, 1.285-1.421; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing pelvic flap reconstruction after oncologic resections experience high complication rates. High case volume hospitals were independently associated with significantly fewer surgical complications but increased hospital costs. Reconstructive surgeons may approach these challenging patients with greater awareness of these associations to improve outcomes and address cost drivers.

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.

Is Improved Survival in Early-Stage Pancreatic Cancer Worth the Extra Cost at High-Volume Centers?

BACKGROUND: Volume of operative cases may be an important factor associated with improved survival for early-stage pancreatic cancer. Most high-volume pancreatic centers are also academic institutions, which have been associated with additional healthcare costs. We hypothesized that at high-volume centers, the value of the extra survival outweighs the extra cost. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study used data from the California Cancer Registry linked to the Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development database from January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2012. Stage I-II pancreatic cancer patients who underwent resection were included. Multivariable analyses estimated overall survival and 30-day costs at low- vs high-volume pancreatic surgery centers. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and incremental net benefit (INB) were estimated, and statistical uncertainty was characterized using net benefit regression. RESULTS: Of 2,786 patients, 46.5% were treated at high-volume centers and 53.5% at low-volume centers. There was a 0.45-year (5.4 months) survival benefit (95% CI 0.21-0.69) and a $7,884 extra cost associated with receiving surgery at high-volume centers (95% CI $4,074-$11,694). The ICER was $17,529 for an additional year of survival (95% CI $7,997-$40,616). For decision-makers willing to pay more than $20,000 for an additional year of life, high-volume centers appear cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Although healthcare costs were greater at high-volume centers, patients undergoing pancreatic surgery at high-volume centers experienced a survival benefit (5.4 months). The extra cost of $17,529 per additional year is quite modest for improved survival and is economically attractive by many oncology standards.

Adult cardiac surgery during COVID-19 lockdown: Impact on activity and outcomes in a high-volume centre.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak had a direct impact on adult cardiac surgery activity, which systematically necessitates a postoperative stay in intensive care. AIM: To study the effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on cardiac surgery activity and outcomes, by making a comparison with the corresponding period in 2019. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study compared adult cardiac surgery activity in our high-volume referral university hospital from 9 March to 10 May 2020 versus 9 March to 10 May 2019. Data were collected in our local certified database and a national database sponsored by the French society of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery. The primary study endpoints were operative mortality and postoperative complications. RESULTS: With 105 interventions in 2020, our activity dropped by 57% compared with the same period in 2019. Patients were at higher risk, with a significantly higher EuroSCORE II score (3.8±4.5% vs. 2.0±1.8%; P<0.001) and higher rates of active endocarditis (7.6% vs. 2.9%; P=0.047) and recent myocardial infarction (9.5% vs. 0%; P<0.001). The weight and priority of the interventions were significantly different in 2020 (P=0.019 and P<0.001, respectively). The rate of acute aortic syndromes was also significantly higher in 2020 (P<0.001). Operative mortality was higher during the lockdown period (5.7% vs. 1.7%; P=0.038). The postoperative course was more complicated in 2020, with more postoperative bleeding (P=0.003), mechanical circulatory support (P=0.032) and prolonged mechanical ventilation (P=0.005). Only two patients (1.8%) developed a positive status for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Adult cardiac surgery was heavily affected by the COVID-19 lockdown. A further modulation plan is necessary to improve outcomes and reduce postponed operations to decrease operative mortality and morbidity.

Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy is cost-effective when performed in high volume centers: A five state analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies comparing the efficacy of laparoscopic (LHR) and open hepatic resection (OHR) have not evaluated inpatient costs. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases to identify patients undergoing hepatic resection between 2010 and 2014. RESULTS: 10,239 patients underwent hepatic resection. 865 (8%) underwent LHR and 9374 (92%) underwent OHR. On adjusting for hospital volume, patients undergoing LHR had a lower risk of respiratory (OR 0.64, 95% CI [0.52, 0.78]), wound (OR 0.48; 95% CI [0.29, 0.79]) and hematologic (OR 0.57; 95% CI [0.44, 0.73]) complication as well as a lower risk of being in the highest quartile of cost (0.58; 95% CI [0.43, 0.77]) than those undergoing OHR. Patients undergoing LHR in very high volume (>314 hepatectomies/year) centers had lower risk-adjusted 90-day aggregate costs of care than those undergoing OHR (-$8022; 95% CI [-$11,732, -$4311). DISCUSSION: Laparoscopic partial hepatectomy is associated with lower risk of postoperative complication than OHR. This translates to lower aggregate costs in very high-volume centers.

Identifying surgeon and institutional drivers of cost in total shoulder arthroplasty: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Despite rapid increases in the demand for total shoulder arthroplasty, data describing cost trends are scarce. We aim to (1) describe variation in the cost of shoulder arthroplasty performed by different surgeons at multiple hospitals and (2) determine the driving factors of such variation. METHODS: A standardized, highly accurate cost accounting method, time-driven activity-based costing, was used to determine the cost of 1571 shoulder arthroplasties performed by 12 surgeons at 4 high-volume institutions between 2016 and 2018. Costs were broken down into supply costs (including implant price and consumables) and personnel costs, including physician fees. Cost parameters were compared with total cost for surgical episodes and case volume. RESULTS: Across 4 institutions and 12 surgeons, surgeon volume and hospital volume did not correlate with episode-of-care cost. Average cost per case of each institution varied by factors of 1.6 (P = .47) and 1.7 (P = .06) for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), respectively. Implant (56% and 62%, respectively) and personnel costs from check-in through the operating room (21% and 17%, respectively) represented the highest percentages of cost and highly correlated with the cost of the episode of care for TSA and RSA. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in episode-of-care total costs for both TSA and RSA had no association with hospital or surgeon case volume at 4 high-volume institutions but was driven primarily by variation in implant and personnel costs through the operating room. This analysis does not address medium- or long-term costs.