Defining a minimum hospital volume threshold for minimally invasive colon cancer resections.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colectomy is considered the standard of care in colon cancer treatment when appropriate expertise is available. However, guidelines do not delineate what experience is required to implement this approach safely and effectively. This study aimed to establish a data-derived, hospital-level annual volume threshold for laparoscopic colectomy at which patient outcomes are optimized. METHODS: This evaluation included 44,157 stage I to III adenocarcinoma patients aged ≥40 years who underwent laparoscopic colon resection between 2010 and 2015 within the National Cancer Database. The primary outcome was overall survival, with 30- and 90-day mortality, duration of stay, days to receipt of chemotherapy, and number of lymph nodes examined as secondary. Segmented logistic and Cox regression models were used to identify volume thresholds which optimized these outcomes. RESULTS: In hospitals performing ≥30 laparoscopic colectomies per year there were incremental improvements in overall survival for each additional resection beyond 30. Hospitals performing ≥30 procedures/year demonstrated improved 30-day mortality (1.3% vs 1.7%, P < .001), 90-day mortality (2.3% vs 2.9%, P < .001), and overall survival (84.3% vs 82.3%, P < .001). Those hospitals performing <30 procedures/year had no significant benefit in overall survival. Thresholds were not identified for any other outcomes. Results were comparable in colon cancer patients with stage IV or multiple cancers. CONCLUSION: A high-volume hospital threshold of ≥30 cases/year for laparoscopic colectomies is associated with improved patient survival and outcomes. A minimum volume standard may help providers determine which approach is most suitable for their hospital's practice as open procedures may yield better oncologic results in low volume settings.

Editor's Choice - Optimal Threshold for the Volume-Outcome Relationship After Open AAA Repair in the Endovascular Era: Analysis of the International Consortium of Vascular Registries.

OBJECTIVE: As open abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair (OAR) rates decline in the endovascular era, the endorsement of minimum volume thresholds for OAR is increasingly controversial, as this may affect credentialing and training. The purpose of this analysis was to identify an optimal centre volume threshold that is associated with the most significant mortality reduction after OAR, and to determine how this reflects contemporary practice. METHODS: This was an observational study of OARs performed in 11 countries (2010 - 2016) within the International Consortium of Vascular Registry database (n = 178 302). The primary endpoint was post-operative in hospital mortality. Two different methodologies (area under the receiving operating curve optimisation and Markov chain Monte Carlo procedure) were used to determine the optimal centre volume threshold associated with the most significant mortality improvement. RESULTS: In total, 154 912 (86.9%) intact and 23 390 (13.1%) ruptured AAAs were analysed. The majority (63.1%; n = 112 557) underwent endovascular repair (EVAR) (OAR 36.9%; n = 65 745). A significant inverse relationship between increasing centre volume and lower peri-operative mortality after intact and ruptured OAR was evident (p < .001) but not with EVAR. An annual centre volume of between 13 and 16 procedures per year was associated with the most significant mortality reduction after intact OAR (adjusted predicted mortality < 13 procedures/year 4.6% [95% confidence interval 4.0% - 5.2%] vs. ≥ 13 procedures/year 3.1% [95% CI 2.8% - 3.5%]). With the increasing adoption of EVAR, the mean number of OARs per centre (intact + ruptured) decreased significantly (2010 - 2013 = 35.7; 2014 - 2016 = 29.8; p < .001). Only 23% of centres (n = 240/1 065) met the ≥ 13 procedures/year volume threshold, with significant variation between nations (Germany 11%; Denmark 100%). CONCLUSION: An annual centre volume of 13 - 16 OARs per year is the optimal threshold associated with the greatest mortality risk reduction after treatment of intact AAA. However, in the current endovascular era, achieving this threshold requires significant re-organisation of OAR practice delivery in many countries, and would affect provision of non-elective aortic services. Low volume centres continuing to offer OAR should aim to achieve mortality results equivalent to the high volume institution benchmark, using validated data from quality registries to track outcomes.

Quality Improvement for Surgical Resection of Pancreatic Head Adenocarcinoma : Hospital and Surgeon Predictors of Higher Than Expected R1 Resection Using the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: The mainstay of treatment for pancreatic cancer is surgical resection; however, positive surgical margins remain commonplace. We identified hospitals with higher than predicted rates of positive margins and isolated factors that caused this discordance. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients with head of the pancreas adenocarcinoma in the National Cancer Database between 2004 and 2015. A nomogram was used to calculate the observed to expected positive margin rates (O/E) for facilities. If the O/E differed significantly (P < .05), it was considered an outlier. RESULTS: Among a total of 19 968 patients, 24.3% had positive margins. Among hospitals with lower than expected positive margin rates, 73.6% were academic or research programs, 17% were comprehensive community cancer programs, and none were community cancer programs (P = .0002). Within the group with higher than expected positive margin rates, 47% were comprehensive community cancer programs and 38.6% were academic or research programs (P = .0002). The mean hospital volume was higher in the low positive margin group (110.4 vs 48.8, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Facility type and hospital volume can predict improvement in the O/E ratio for margin positivity in pancreatic adenocarcinoma resection. Surgeons should consider referral to academic or research facilities with higher case volumes for improved surgical resection.

Mortality and complication management after surgery for colorectal cancer depending on the DKG minimum amounts for hospital volume.

BACKGROUND: The German Cancer Society ("Deutsche Krebsgesellschaft"; DKG) certifies on a volunteer base colorectal cancer centers based on, among other things, minimum operative amounts (at least 30 oncological colon cancer resections and 20 oncological rectal cancer resections per year). In this work, nationwide hospital mortality and death after documented complications ('Failure to Rescue' = FtR) were evaluated depending on the fulfillment of the minimum amounts. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of the nationwide hospital billing data (DRG data, 2012-2017). Categorization is based on the DKG minimum quantities (fully, partially or not fulfilled). RESULTS: Of 287,227 patients analyzed, 56.5% were operated in centers that met the DKG minimum amounts. The overall hospital mortality rate was 5.0%. In centers which met the minimum quantities, it was significantly lower (4.3%) than in hospitals which partially (5.7%) or not (6.2%) met the minimum quantities. The risk-adjusted hospital mortality rate for patients in hospitals who meet the minimum amount was 20% lower (OR 0.80; 95% CI [0.74-0.87], p < 0.001). For complications, both surgical and non-surgical, there was an unadjusted and adjusted lower FtR in hospitals that met the minimum amounts (e.g. anastomotic leak: 11.2% vs. 15.6%, p < 0.001; pulmonary artery embolism 21.3% vs. 28.2%, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: There is a 1/3 lower mortality and FtR rate after surgery for a colon or rectal cancer in centers fulfilling the DKG minimum amounts. The presented data implicate that there is an urgent need for a nationwide centralization program.

Industry-Wide Survey of Academic Anesthesiology Departments Provides Up-to-Date Benchmarking Data on Surgical Anesthesia Productivity.

BACKGROUND: Benchmarking group surgical anesthesia productivity continues to be an important but challenging goal for anesthesiology groups. Benchmarking is important because it provides objective data to evaluate staffing needs and costs, identify potential operating room management decisions that could reduce costs or improve efficiency, and support ongoing negotiations and discussions with health system leadership. Unfortunately, good and meaningful benchmarking data are not readily available. Therefore, a survey of academic anesthesiology departments was done to provide current benchmarking data. METHODS: A survey of members of the Society of Academic Associations of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine (SAAAPM) was performed. The survey collected data by facility and included type of facility, number and type of staff and anesthetizing sites each weekday, and the billed American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) units and number of cases over 12 months. The facility types included academic medical center (AMC), community hospital (Community), children's hospital (Children), and ambulatory surgical center (ASC). All anesthesia care billed using ASA units were included, except for obstetric anesthesia. Any care not billed or billed using relative value units (RVUs) were excluded. Percentage of nonoperating room anesthetizing sites, staffing ratio, and surgical anesthesia productivity measurements "per case" and "per site" were calculated. RESULTS: Of the 135 society members, 63 submitted complete surveys for 140 facilities (69 AMC, 26 Community, 7 Children, and 38 ASC). In the survey, overall median productivity for AMC and Children was similar (12,592 and 12,364 total ASA units per anesthetizing site), while the ASC had the lowest median overall productivity (8911 total ASA units per anesthetizing site). By size of facility, in the survey, the smaller facilities (<10 sites, ASC or non-ASC) had lower median overall productivity as compared to larger facilities. For AMC and Children, >20% of anesthetizing sites were nonoperating room anesthetizing sites. Anesthesiology residents worked primarily in AMC and Children. In ASC and Community, residents worked only in 18% and 35% of facilities, respectively. More than half the AMCs reported at least 1 break certified nurse anesthetist (CRNA) each day. CONCLUSIONS: To make data-driven decisions on clinical productivity, anesthesiology leaders need to be able to make meaningful comparisons at the facility level. For a group that provides care in multiple facilities, one can make internal comparisons among facilities and follow measurements over time. It is valuable for leaders to also be compare their facilities with industry-wide measurements, in other words, benchmark their facilities. These results provide benchmarking data for academic anesthesiology departments.

Observed-to-expected ratio for adherence to treatment guidelines as a quality of care indicator for laryngeal cancer.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To examine associations between survival and adherence to National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) treatment guidelines using an observed-to-expected (O/E) ratio for greater adherence as a risk-adjusted hospital measure of quality care in elderly patients treated for larynx cancer. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with larynx cancer from 2004 to 2007 were evaluated using multivariate regression and survival analysis. A fit logistic regression model was used to calculate an O/E ratio for guideline adherence for each hospital using quality indicators derived from NCCN guidelines for recommended treatment and stratified by hospital volume. RESULTS: Of 1,721 patients treated at 395 hospitals, 43.0% of patients received NCCN guideline-adherent care. Low-volume hospitals (N = 295) treating six or fewer cases treated 765 patients (44.5%), with a mean O/E of 0.96 ± 0.45. Hospitals treating more then six cases with an O/E <1 (N = 32) treated 284 patients (16.5%), with a mean O/E of 0.77 ± 0.18. Hospitals treating more than six cases with an O/E ≥1 (N = 68) treated 672 patients (39.1%), with a mean O/E of 1.17 ± 0.11. Treatment at hospitals with an O/E ≥1 was associated with improved survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.83 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70 to 0.98]) and lower mean incremental treatment-related costs (-$3,009 [-$5,226 to -$791]) compared with hospitals with an O/E <1 (HR = 1.00 [0.80 to 1.24]) and the reference group of low-volume hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: A hospital-specific O/E for NCCN treatment guideline adherence, combined with a minimum case volume criterion, is associated with survival and treatment-related costs in elderly patients with larynx cancer, and may be a feasible measure of larynx cancer quality of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA Laryngoscope, 130:672-678, 2020.

Volume Standards for Open Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair Are Not Associated With Improved Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Volume-outcome relationships exist for many complex surgical procedures, prompting institutions to adopt surgical volume standards for credentialing. The current Leapfrog Group Hospital volume standard for open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (OAR) is 15 per year. However, this is primarily based on data from the 1990s and may not be appropriate given the dramatic decline in OAR. We sought to quantify the proportion of hospitals meeting volume standards, the difference in perioperative outcomes between low-volume and high-volume hospitals, and the potential travel burden of volume credentialing on patients. METHODS: We identified Medicare beneficiaries for individuals aged ≥65 years undergoing OAR in 2013-2014. Hospital "all-payer" annual volume was estimated based on the national proportion of patients undergoing OAR covered by Medicare in the Vascular Quality Initiative. Hospital annual OAR volume was characterized as <5/year, 5-9/year, 10-14/year, and ≥15/year (high volume). Adjusted rates of postoperative morbidity, reoperation, failure to rescue, and mortality in 2014 were compared across volume cohorts. Distance between patients' home zip code and high-volume hospitals was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 21,191 OARs were performed at 1,445 hospitals between 2013 and 2014. The average hospital OAR annual volume was 7.8 (standard deviation [SD] ± 9.3) with a median of 4.5. Among the 1,445 hospitals, only 190 (13.1%) performed ≥15 OARs per year whereas 756 hospitals (53.3%) performed <5 per year. Among patients who underwent OAR in 2014, 5,395 (53.3%) received care at a hospital that performed <15 per year. There was no difference in complication, reoperation, or failure to rescue rates between high-volume and low-volume hospitals. Mortality did not significantly differ among OAR volume cohorts. Hospitals performing <5 OARs per year had a mortality rate of 5.7% compared with 5.6% at high-volume hospitals (P = 0.817). One-quarter of patients who received care at a low-volume hospital would have had to travel more than 60 miles to reach a high-volume hospital. CONCLUSIONS: By conservative estimates, only 13% of hospitals performing OAR meet current volume standards. Triaging all patients to high-volume hospitals would require shifting over 5,000 patients annually with no associated improvement in perioperative outcomes. Implementation of the current OAR hospital volume standard may significantly burden patients and hospitals without improving surgical outcomes.

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.

Alternative approach to pediatric cardiac quality assessment for low-volume centers.

BACKGROUND: In pediatric cardiac care, many centers participate in multiple, national, domain-specific registries, as a major component of their quality assessment and improvement efforts. Small cardiac programs, whose clinical activities and scale may not be well-suited to this approach, need alternative methods to assess and track quality. METHODS: We conceived of and piloted a rapid-approach cardiac quality assessment, intended to encompass multiple aspects of the service line, in a low-volume program. The assessment incorporated previously identified measures, drawn from multiple sources, and ultimately relied on retrospective chart review. RESULTS: A collaborative, multidisciplinary team formed and came to consensus on quality metrics pertaining to 3 chosen areas of clinical activity in the program. Despite the use of multiple different data sources and the need for manual chart review in data collection, a rich assessment of these program components was completed for presentation in 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: While small programs may not participate in the spectrum of cardiac care registries available, these same centers can benefit from them by adapting some of their validated metrics for use in internal, self-maintained quality reports. Our pilot of this alternative approach revealed opportunities for improved quality assessment practices; the product can serve as a baseline for future prospective assessment and reporting, as well as longitudinal internal benchmarking.

Association of Kidney Transplant Center Volume With 3-Year Clinical Outcomes.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: A robust relationship between procedure volume and clinical outcomes has been demonstrated across many surgical fields. This study assessed whether a center volume-outcome relationship exists for contemporary kidney transplantation, specifically for diabetic recipients, older recipients (aged ≥65 years), and recipients of high kidney donor profile index (KDPI ≥ 85) kidneys. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adult kidney-only transplant recipients who underwent transplantation between 2009 and 2013 (N = 79,581). EXPOSURES: The primary exposure variable was center volume, categorized into quartiles based on the total kidney transplantation volume. Quartile 1 (Q1) centers performed a mean of fewer than 66 kidney transplantations per year, whereas Q4 centers performed a mean of more than 196 kidney transplantations per year. OUTCOMES: All-cause graft failure and mortality within 3 years of transplantation. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Multivariable Cox frailty models were used to adjust for donor characteristics, recipient characteristics, and cold ischemia time. RESULTS: Minor differences in rates of 3-year deceased donor all-cause graft failure across quartiles of center volume were observed (14.9% for Q1 vs 16.7% for Q4), including in subgroups (diabetic recipients, 18.4% for Q1 vs 19.7% for Q4; older recipients, 19.4% for Q1 vs 22.5% for Q4; recipients of high KDPI kidneys, 26.5% for Q1 vs 26.5% for Q4). Results were similar for 3-year mortality. After adjustment for donor, recipient, and graft characteristics using Cox regression, center volume was not significantly associated with all-cause graft failure or mortality within 3 years, except that diabetic recipients at Q3 centers had slightly lower mortality (compared with Q1 centers, adjusted HR of 0.85 [95% CI, 0.73-0.99]). LIMITATIONS: Potential unmeasured confounding from patient comorbid conditions and organ selection. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide little evidence that care in higher volume centers is associated with better adjusted outcomes for kidney transplant recipients, even in populations anticipated to be at increased risk for graft failure or death.

Association Between Travel Distance, Hospital Volume, and Outcomes Following Resection of Cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the current study was to characterize the association between travel distance/hospital volume relative to outcomes following resection of cholangiocarcinoma. METHODS: Patients were identified using the 2004-2015 National Cancer Database and stratified into quartiles according to travel distance/hospital volume. Multivariable regression models were utilized to examine the impact of travel distance and hospital volume on quality-of-care metrics and overall survival. RESULTS: Among 5125 patients, the majority of patients had T1/2 (N = 2006, 41.1%) and N0 disease (N = 2498, 50.9%). Median hospital quartile surgical volumes in cases/year were low volume (LV) 6, intermediate low volume (ILV) 7, intermediate high volume (IHV) 12, and high volume (HV) 24 cases/year. Median travel distance quartiles in miles were short travel (ST) 2.7, intermediate short travel (IST) 7.9, intermediate long travel (ILT) 18.9, and long travel (LT) 84.7. Longer travel distances were associated with better overall survival, as every 10 miles was associated with a 2% decrease in mortality (p = 0.02). Differences in quality-of-care metrics were largely mediated through travel distance. CONCLUSIONS: Travel distance and hospital volume were associated with certain quality-of-care metrics among patients with cholangiocarcinoma. After controlling for hospital volume and travel distance simultaneously, only travel distance was associated with decreased risk of mortality.

Transfer of a minimally invasive mitral valve repair program from a high-volume center to a very low volume center: how many cases are necessary to maintain acceptable results?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether minimally invasive mitral valve repair (MIMVR) can be transferred from a high-volume center into a very small volume center and to clarify how many cases are necessary for maintenance of this program, early outcomes of MIMVR in Asahikawa Medical University were compared with those results in patients operated by a single surgeon in Duesseldorf University Hospital. METHODS: Sixty-five patients who underwent MIMVR in Asahikawa Medical University (group A) between May 2014 and July 2018 and 134 patients who underwent MIMVR in Duesseldorf University Hospital (group D) between September 2009 and January 2014 by a surgeon who started MIMVS later in Asahikawa were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: In group D, there were more patients with ischemic mitral valve regurgitation and with annular calcification than in group A. Survival rate at 6 months and 1 year was 98.5% and 98.5% in group A and 92.9% and 91.3% in group D, respectively. EuroSCORE II was significantly higher in patients dead within 30 days and within the first year. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrated that MIMVR programs can be transferred with acceptable early results into very low volume centers, if the team is developed by surgeons who are well trained and experienced in MIMVR. Moreover, the present study suggested that case number for maintenance of acceptable results may be obviously less than the previous recognition that this kind of specialized surgery could be maintained with at least 50 cases annually. However, meticulous preparations for surgery are essential for satisfactory surgical outcomes.

Hospital Quality Metrics: "America's Best Hospitals" and Outcomes After Ischemic Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Developing quality metrics to assess hospital-level care and outcomes is increasingly popular in the United States. The U.S. News & World Report ranking of "America's Best Hospitals" is an existing, popular hospital-profiling system, but it is unknown whether top-ranked hospitals in their report have better outcomes according to other hospital quality metrics such as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) publicly reported 30-day stroke measures. METHODS: The analysis was based on the 2015-2016 U.S. News & World Report ranking of the 50 top-rated hospitals for neurology and neurosurgery and 2012-2014 CMS Hospital Compare Data. We used mixed models adjusted for hospital characteristics and weighted by hospital volume to compare 30-day risk-standardized mortality and readmission between top-ranked and other hospitals. Among the 50 top-ranked hospitals, we determined whether ranking order was associated with the CMS outcomes. RESULTS: Compared with 2737 other hospitals, the 50 top-ranked hospitals had lower 30-day mortality (14.8% versus 15.3%) but higher readmission (14.5% versus 13.3%). These patterns persisted in adjusted analyses with top-ranked hospitals having .72% (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.09%, -.34%) lower mortality and .41% (95% CI .16%, .67%) higher readmission. Among top-ranked hospitals, rank order was not associated with mortality (.05% decrease in mortality with each rank, 95% CI -.10%, .01%) or readmission (.02% increase; 95% CI -.03%, .06%). CONCLUSION: Admission to a top-ranked hospital for neurology or neurosurgery was associated with lower 30-day risk-standardized mortality but higher readmission after ischemic stroke. There was heterogeneity in outcomes among the 50 top-ranked hospitals.

Mitral valve repair, how to make volume not matter; techniques, tendencies, and outcomes, a single center experience.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence has showed us that quality of mitral valve repair is strongly related to volume. However, this study shows how low-volume centers can achieve results in mitral valve repair surgery comparable to those reported by referral centers. It compares outcomes of mitral valve repair using resection versus noresection techniques, tendencies, and rates of repair. METHODS: Between 2004 and 2017, 200 patients underwent mitral valve repair for degenerative mitral valve disease at Fundación Cardioinfantil-Institute of Cardiology. Fifty-eight (29%) patients underwent resection and 142 (71%) noresection. RESULTS: Follow-up was 94% complete, mean follow-up time was 2.3 years. There was no 30-day mortality. Five patients required mitral valve replacement after an average of 5.3 years (Resection = 2; Noresection = 3). Freedom from severe mitral regurgitation was 98% at 6.6 years of follow-up for the noresection group, and 92.5% at 7 years for the resection group (log rank: 0.888). At last follow-up, two patients died of cardiovascular disease related to mitral valve, 181 patients (86%) showed no or grade I mitral regurgitation. Patients with previous myocardial infarction had increased risk of recurrent mitral regurgitation (p = 0,030). Within four years, we inverted the proportion of mitral valve replacement and repair, and in 2016 we achieved a mitral valve repair rate of 96%. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that resection and noresection techniques are safe and effective. Recurrence of severe mitral regurgitation and need for mitral valve replacement are rare. We show that low-volume centers can achieve results comparable to those reported worldwide by establishing a mitral valve repair team. We encourage hospitals to follow this model of mitral valve repair program to decrease the proportion of mitral valve replacement, while increasing mitral valve repair.

The Learning Curve and Annual Procedure Volume Standards for Optimum Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Findings From an International Registry.

OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to determine the procedural learning curve and minimum annual institutional volumes associated with optimum clinical outcomes for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a complex procedure requiring significant training and experience for successful outcome. Despite increasing use of TAVR across institutions, limited information is available for its learning curve characteristics and minimum annual volumes required to optimize clinical outcomes. METHODS: The study collected data for patients at 16 centers participating in the international TAVR registry since initiation of the respective TAVR program. All cases were chronologically ordered into initial (1 to 75), early (76 to 150), intermediate (151 to 225), high (226 to 300), and very high (>300) experience operators for TAVR learning curve characterization. In addition, participating institutions were stratified by annual TAVR case volume into low-volume (<50), moderate-volume (50 to 100), and high-volume (>100) groups for comparative analysis. Procedural and 30-day clinical outcomes were collected and multivariate regression analysis performed for 30-day mortality and the early safety endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 3,403 patients comprised the study population. On multivariate analysis, all-cause mortality was significantly higher for initial (odds ratio [OR]: 3.83; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.93 to 7.60), early (OR: 2.41; 95% CI: 1.51 to 5.03), and intermediate (OR: 2.53; 95% CI: 1.19 to 5.40) experience groups compared with the very high experience operators. In addition, the early safety endpoint was significantly worse for all experience groups compared with the very high experience operators. Low annual volume (<50) TAVR institutions had significantly higher all-cause 30-day mortality (OR: 2.70; 95% CI: 1.44 to 5.07) and worse early safety endpoint (OR: 1.60; 95% CI: 1.17 to 2.17) compared with the moderate- and high-volume groups. There was no difference in patient outcomes between intermediate and high annual volume groups. CONCLUSIONS: TAVR procedures display important learning curve characteristics with both greater procedural safety and a lower mortality when performed by experienced operators. In addition, TAVR performed at low annual volume (<50 procedures) institutions is associated with decreased procedural safety and higher patient mortality. These findings have important implications for operator training and patient care at centers performing TAVR.

Assessment of barriers and facilitators in the implementation of appropriate use criteria for elective percutaneous coronary interventions: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The use of inappropriate elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) has decreased over time, but hospital-level variation in the use of inappropriate PCI persists. Understanding the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) guidelines may inform efforts to improve elective PCI appropriateness. METHODS: All hospitals performing PCI in Washington State were categorized by their use of inappropriate elective PCI in 2010 to 2013. Semi-structured, qualitative telephone interviews were then conducted with 17 individual interviews at 13 sites in Washington State to identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of the AUC guidelines. An inductive and deductive, team-based analytical approach, drawing primarily on Matrix analysis was performed to identify factors affecting implementation of the AUC. RESULTS: Specific facilitators were identified that supported successful implementation of the AUC. These included collaborative catheterization laboratory environments that allow all staff to participate with questions and opinions; ongoing AUC education with catheterization laboratory teams and referring providers; internal AUC peer review processes; interventional cardiologist be directly involved with the pre-procedural review process; checklist-based algorithms for pre-procedural documentation; systems redesign to include insurance companies; and AUC educational information with patients. Barriers to implementation of the AUC included external pressures, such as competition for patients, and the lack of shared medical records with sites that referred patients for coronary angiography. CONCLUSIONS: The identified facilitators enabled sites to successfully implement the AUC. Catheterization laboratories struggling to successfully implement the AUC may consider utilizing these strategies to improve their processes to improve patient selection for elective PCI.

Hospitalization metrics associated with hospital-level variation in inferior vena cava filter utilization for patients with venous thromboembolism in the United States: Implications for quality of care.

Variation in the use of inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs) across hospitals has been observed, suggesting differences in quality of care. Hospitalization metrics associated with venous thromboembolism (VTE) patients have not been compared based on IVCF utilization rates using a national sample. We conducted a descriptive retrospective study using the Nationwide Readmissions Database (NRD) to delineate the variability of hospitalization metrics across the hospital quartiles of IVCF utilization for VTE patients. The NRD included all-payer administrative inpatient records drawn from 22 states. Adult (≥ 18 years) patients with VTE hospitalizations with or without IVCF were identified from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2014 and hospitals were divided into quartiles based on the IVCF utilization rate as a proportion of VTE patients. Primary outcome measures were observed rates of in-hospital mortality, 30-day all-cause readmissions and VTE-related readmissions, cost, and length of stay. Patient case-mix characteristics and hospital-level factors by hospital quartiles of IVCF utilization rates, were compared. Overall, 12.29% of VTE patients had IVCF placement, with IVCF utilization ranging from 0% to 46.84%. The highest quartile had fewer pulmonary embolism patients relative to deep vein thrombosis patients, and older patient ages were present in higher quartiles. The highest quartile of hospitals placing IVCFs were more often private, for-profit, and non-teaching. Patient and hospital characteristics and hospitalization metrics varied by IVCF utilization rates, but hospitalization outcomes for non-IVCF patients varied most between quartiles. Future work investigating the implications of IVCF utilization rates as a measure of quality of care for VTE patients is needed.

Quality indicators in pediatric colonoscopy in a low-volume center: Implications for training.

AIM: To study implications of measuring quality indicators on training and trainees' performance in pediatric colonoscopy in a low-volume training center. METHODS: We reviewed retrospectively the performance of pediatric colonoscopies in a training center in Malaysia over 5 years (January 2010-December 2015), benchmarked against five quality indicators: appropriateness of indications, bowel preparations, cecum and ileal examination rates, and complications. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guideline for pediatric endoscopy and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition training guidelines were used as benchmarks. RESULTS: Median (± SD) age of 121 children [males = 74 (61.2%)] who had 177 colonoscopies was 7.0 (± 4.6) years. On average, 30 colonoscopies were performed each year (range: 19-58). Except for investigations of abdominal pain (21/177, 17%), indications for colonoscopies were appropriate in the remaining 83%. Bowel preparation was good in 87%. One patient (0.6%) with severe Crohn's disease had bowel perforation. Cecum examination and ileal intubation rate was 95% and 68.1%. Ileal intubation rate was significantly higher in diagnosing or assessing inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) than non-IBD (72.9% vs 50.0% P = 0.016). Performance of four trainees was consistent throughout the study period. Average cecum and ileal examination rate among trainees were 97% and 77%. CONCLUSION: Benchmarking against established guidelines helps units with a low-volume of colonoscopies to identify area for further improvement.