Pacing Using Cardiac Implantable Electric Device During TAVR: 10-Year Experience of a High-Volume Center.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is an effective and safe therapy for severe aortic stenosis. Rapid or fast pacing is required for implantation, which can be performed via a pre-existing cardiac implantable electric device (CIED). However, safety data on CIEDs for pacing in TAVR are missing. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to elucidate procedural safety and feasibility of internal pacing with a CIED in TAVR. METHODS: Patients undergoing TAVR with a CIED were included in this analysis. Baseline characteristics, procedural details, and complications according to Valve Academic Research Consortium 3 (VARC-3) criteria after TAVR were compared between both groups. RESULTS: A total of 486 patients were included. Pacing was performed using a CIED in 150 patients and a transient pacemaker in 336 patients. No differences in technical success according to VARC-3 criteria or procedure duration occurred between the groups. The usage of transient pacers for pacing was associated with a significantly higher bleeding rate (bleeding type ≥2 according to VARC-3-criteria; 2.0% vs 13.1%; P < 0.01). Furthermore, impairment of the CIED appeared in 2.3% of patients after TAVR only in the group in which pacing was performed by a transient pacer, leading to surgical revision of the CIED in 1.3% of all patients when transient pacemakers were used. CONCLUSIONS: Internal pacing using a CIED is safe and feasible without differences of procedural time and technical success and might reduce bleeding rates. Furthermore, pacing using a CIED circumvents the risk of lead dislocation. Our data provide an urgent call for the use of a CIED for pacing during a TAVR procedure in general.

Impact of hospital volume on failure to rescue for complications requiring reoperation after elective colorectal surgery: multicentre propensity score-matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: It has previously been reported that there are similar reoperation rates after elective colorectal surgery but higher failure-to-rescue (FTR) rates in low-volume hospitals (LVHs) versus high-volume hospitals (HVHs). This study assessed the effect of hospital volume on reoperation rate and FTR after reoperation following elective colorectal surgery in a matched cohort. METHODS: Population-based retrospective multicentre cohort study of adult patients undergoing reoperation for a complication after an elective, non-centralized colorectal operation between 2006 and 2017 in 11 hospitals. Hospitals were divided into either HVHs (3 hospitals, median ≥126 resections per year) or LVHs (8 hospitals, <126 resections per year). Patients were propensity score-matched (PSM) for baseline characteristics as well as indication and type of elective surgery. Primary outcome was FTR. RESULTS: A total of 6428 and 3020 elective colorectal resections were carried out in HVHs and LVHs, of which 217 (3.4%) and 165 (5.5%) underwent reoperation (P < 0.001), respectively. After PSM, 142 patients undergoing reoperation remained in both HVH and LVH groups for final analyses. FTR rate was 7.7% in HVHs and 10.6% in LVHs (P = 0.410). The median Comprehensive Complication Index was 21.8 in HVHs and 29.6 in LVHs (P = 0.045). There was no difference in median ICU-free days, length of stay, the risk for permanent ostomy or overall survival between the groups. CONCLUSION: The reoperation rate and postoperative complication burden was higher in LVHs with no significant difference in FTR compared with HVHs.

Quality of surgery and treatment and its association with hospital volume: A population-based study in more than 5000 Belgian ovarian cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Different sets of quality indicators are used to identify areas for improvement in ovarian cancer care. This study reports transparently on how (surgical) indicators were measured and on the association between hospital volume and indicator results in Belgium, a country setting without any centralisation of ovarian cancer care. METHODS: From the population-based Belgian Cancer Registry, patients with a borderline malignant or invasive epithelial ovarian tumour diagnosed between 2014 and 2018 were selected and linked to health insurance and vital status data (n = 5119). Thirteen quality indicators on diagnosis and treatment were assessed and the association with hospital volume was analysed using logistic regression adjusted for case-mix. RESULTS: The national results for most quality indicators on diagnosis and systemic therapy were around the predefined target value. Other indicators showed results below the benchmark: genetic testing, completeness of staging surgery, lymphadenectomy with at least 20 pelvic/para-aortic lymph nodes removed, and timely start of chemotherapy after surgery (within 42 days). Ovarian cancer care in Belgium is dispersed over 100 hospitals. Lower volume hospitals showed poorer indicator results compared to higher volume hospitals for lymphadenectomy, staging, timely start of chemotherapy and genetic testing. In addition, surgery for advanced stage tumours was performed less often in lower volume hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: The indicators that showed poorer results on a national level were also those with poorer results in lower-volume hospitals compared to higher-volume hospitals, consequently supporting centralisation. International benchmarking is hampered by different (surgical) definitions between countries and studies.

High-Volume Centers Provide Superior Value of Care in the Surgical Treatment of Malignant Brain Tumor.

BACKGROUND: Improved outcomes in surgical patients have been associated with increasing volume of cases. This has led to the development of centers that facilitate care for a specific patient population. This study aimed to evaluate associations of outcomes with hospital characteristics in patients undergoing resection of malignant brain tumors. METHODS: The 2016-2020 National Inpatient Sample was queried for patients undergoing resection of malignant brain tumors. Teaching hospitals with caseloads >2 standard deviations above the mean (140 cases) were categorized as high-volume centers (HVCs). Value of care was evaluated by adding one point for each of the following: short length of stay, low total charges, favorable discharge disposition, and lack of major comorbidity or complication. RESULTS: In 3009 hospitals, 118,390 patients underwent resection of malignant brain tumors. HVC criteria were met by 91 (3%) hospitals. HVCs were more likely to treat patients of younger age or higher socioeconomic status (P < 0.01 for all). The Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic regions had the highest percentage of cases and number of HVCs. Value of care was higher at HVCs (P < 0.01). Care at HVCs was associated with decreased complications (P < 0.01 for all) and improved patient outcomes (P < 0.01 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing craniotomy for malignant brain neoplasms have superior outcomes in HVCs. Trends of centralization may reflect the benefits of multidisciplinary treatment, geographic preferences, publicity, and cultural impact. Improvement of access to care is an important consideration as this trend continues.

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

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

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

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

National observational study about the surgical treatment of anal fistula: Does the kind of hospital modify the results?

INTRODUCTION: Performing the surgical procedure in a high-volume center has been seen to be important for some surgical procedures. However, this issue has not been studied for patients with an anal fistula (AF). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective multicentric study was performed including the patients who underwent AF surgery in 2019 in 56 Spanish hospitals. A univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to analyse the relationship between hospital volume and AF cure and fecal incontinence (FI). RESULTS: 1809 patients were include. Surgery was performed in a low, middle, and high-volume hospitals in 127 (7.0%), 571 (31.6%) y 1111 (61.4%) patients respectively. After a mean follow-up of 18.9 months 72.3% (1303) patients were cured and 132 (7.6%) developed FI. The percentage of patients cured was 74.8%, 75.8% and 70.3% (p = 0.045) for low, middle, and high-volume hospitals. Regarding FI, no statistically significant differences were observed depending on the hospital volume (4.8%, 8.0% and 7.7% respectively, p = 0.473). Multivariate analysis didnt observe a relationship between AF cure and FI. CONCLUSION: Cure and FI in patients who underwent AF surgery were independent from hospital volume.

Consistency between POLARS and LARS scores regarding the incidence of low anterior resection syndrome in a Chilean population undergoing rectal surgery secondary to cancer in a high-volume hospital.

AIM: The aim of this work was to evaluate the concordance between the low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) and preoperative LARS (POLARS) scores regarding the incidence of LARS in a Chilean population undergoing rectal surgery for cancer in a high-volume hospital. METHOD: The LARS score questionnaire, following telephone requests, was used to determine the presence and severity of LARS. The POLARS score was calculated based on variables described previously. Correlations and qualitative and quantitative concordance were evaluated using Spearman's correlation coefficient, the kappa coefficient and the Bland-Altman plot with Lin's concordance correlation coefficient. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients met the inclusion criteria: 37.5% underwent neoadjuvant radiotherapy, 61% underwent total mesorectal excision (TME) and 51.6% underwent ostomy. A total of 49% of patients did not present with LARS, whereas 28% had major LARS. The correlation between scales was poor, with a fair qualitative concordance to determine the presence/absence of LARS and a slight qualitative concordance to determine the degree of the intensity. The quantitative concordance was poor. CONCLUSION: In the Chilean population, concordance between the LARS and POLARS scores was qualitatively fair to determine the presence/absence of the disease and qualitatively slight to determine the degree of intensity. We do not suggest using the POLARS score in the perioperative period in the Chilean population deliberately, as the score may help to determine the presence/absence of LARS but cannot determine its degree of intensity. Additional evaluations are required to determine the factors contributing to the degree of agreement between the scales.

Racial and Socioeconomic Differences and Surgical Outcomes in Pancreaticoduodenectomy Patients: A Systematic Review of High- Versus Low-Volume Hospitals in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is associated with better outcomes in high-volume hospitals. However, it is unknown whether and to what extent the improved performance of high-volume hospitals may be associated with racial and socioeconomic factors, which have been shown to impact operative and postoperative outcomes in major surgeries. This review aims to identify the differences in racial and socioeconomic characteristics of patients who underwent PD surgery in high- and low-volume hospitals. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science were systematically searched between May 1, 2023 and May 7, 2023 without any time restriction on publication date. Studies that were conducted in the United States and had a direct comparison between high- and low-volume hospitals were included. RESULTS: A total of 30 observational studies were included. When racial proportions were compared by hospital volume, thirteen studies reported that compared to high-volume hospitals, a higher percentage of racial minorities underwent PD in low-volume hospitals. Disparities in traveling distance, education levels, and median income at baseline between high- and low-volume hospitals were reported by four, three, and two studies, respectively. CONCLUSION: A racial difference at baseline between high- and low-volume hospitals was observed. Socioeconomic factors were less frequently included in existing literature. Future studies are needed to understand the socioeconomic differences between patients receiving PD surgery in high- and low-volume hospitals.

Urban-Rural Differences in Receipt of Cancer Surgery at High-Volume Hospitals and Sensitivity to Hospital Volume Thresholds.

Methods for identifying high-volume hospitals affect conclusions about rural cancer care access.

The impact of hospital volume on liver resection: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare the outcomes of high-volume, medium-volume, and low-volume hospitals performing hepatic resections using a network meta-analysis. METHODS: A literature search until June 2023 was conducted across major databases to identify studies comparing outcomes in high-volume, medium-volume, and low-volume hospitals for liver resection. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted, and surface under cumulative ranking area values, odds ratio, and mean difference with 95% credible intervals were reported for postoperative mortality, failure-to-rescue, morbidity, length of stay, and hospital costs. RESULTS: Twenty studies comprising 248,707 patients undergoing liver resection were included. For the primary mortality outcome, overall and subgroup analyses were performed: group I: high-volume = 5 to 20 resections/year; group II: high-volume = 21 to 49 resections/year; group III: high-volume ≥50 resections/year. Results demonstrated a significant association between hospital volume and mortality (overall-high-volume versus medium-volume: odds ratio 0.66, 95% credible interval 0.49-0.87; high-volume versus low-volume: odds ratio 0.52, 95% credible interval 0.41-0.65; group I-high-volume versus low-volume: odds ratio 0.34, 95% credible interval 0.22-0.50; medium-volume versus low-volume: odds ratio 0.56, 95% credible interval 0.33-0.92; group II-high-volume versus low-volume: odds ratio 0.67, 95% credible interval 0.45-0.91), as well as length of stay (high-volume versus low-volume: mean difference -1.24, 95% credible interval -2.07 to -0.41), favoring high-volume hospitals. No significant difference was observed in failure-to-rescue, morbidity, or hospital costs across the 3 groups. CONCLUSION: This study supports a positive relationship between hospital volume and surgical outcomes in liver resection. Patients from high-volume hospitals experience superior outcomes in terms of lower postoperative mortality and shorter lengths of stay than medium-volume and low-volume hospitals.

High-volume endocrine surgeons perform thyroid surgery at decreased cost despite increased case relative value units.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems are transitioning to value-based payment models based on analysis of quality over cost. To gain an understanding of the relationship between surgeon volume and health care costs, we compared the direct costs of thyroidectomy performed by dedicated high-volume endocrine surgeons and low-volume surgeons within a large health care system. METHODS: We evaluated all thyroid surgeries performed within a single billing year at a single health care system. We defined high-volume surgeons as those who treated >50 thyroid cases yearly and compared them to low-volume surgeons. To account for multicomponent procedures, we added the relative value units for the components of the cases. Then, we divided them into low-relative value units, intermediate-relative value units, and high-relative value units groups. We analyzed categorical and continuous variables using the χ2 analysis and Wilcoxon rank sum test, respectively. RESULTS: We identified 674 thyroidectomy procedures performed by 27 surgeons, of whom 6 high-volume surgeons performed 79% of cases. Relative value unit distribution differed between the groups, with high-volume surgeons performing more intermediate-relative value unit (58% vs 34.7%, P < .01) and high-relative value unit (24.6% vs 20.6%, P < .01) cases, whereas low-volume surgeons performed more low-relative value unit cases (45% vs 17%, P < .01). Overall, high-volume surgeons incurred a 26% reduction in total costs (P < .01) and a 33% reduction in discretionary expenses (P < .01) across all relative value unit groups. CONCLUSION: High-volume endocrine surgeons perform thyroid procedures at a lower cost than their low-volume counterparts, a difference that is magnified when stratified by relative value unit groups.

Is surgical treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma at high-volume centers worth the additional cost?

BACKGROUND: Case volume has been associated with improved outcomes for patients undergoing treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma, often with higher hospital expenditures. We sought to define the cost-effectiveness of hepatocellular carcinoma treatment at high-volume centers. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma from 2013 to 2017 were identified from Medicare Standard Analytic Files. High-volume centers were defined as the top decile of facilities performing hepatectomies in a year. A multivariable generalized linear model with gamma distribution and a restricted mean survival time model were used to estimate costs and survival differences relative to high-volume center status. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was used to define the additional cost incurred for a 1-year incremental gain in survival. RESULTS: Among 13,666 patients, 8,467 (62.0%) were treated at high-volume centers. Median expenditure was higher ($19,148, interquartile range $15,280-$29,128) among patients treated at high-volume centers versus low-volume centers ($18,209, interquartile range $14,959-$29,752). Despite similar median length-of-stay (6 days, interquartile range 4-9), a slightly higher proportion of patients were discharged to home from high-volume centers (n = 4,903, 57.9%) versus low-volume centers (n = 2,868, 55.2%) (P = .002). A 0.14-year (95% confidence interval 0.06-0.22) (1 month and 3 weeks) survival benefit was associated with an incremental cost of $1,070 (95% confidence interval $749-$1,392) among patients undergoing surgery at high-volume centers. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for treatment at a high-volume center was $7,951 (95% confidence interval $4,236-$21,217) for an additional year of survival, which was below the cost-effective threshold of $21,217. CONCLUSION: Surgical care at high-volume centers offers the potential to deliver cancer care in a more cost-effective and value-based manner.

The Relationship Between Procedural Volume, Hospital Quality, and Postoperative Mortality in Pediatric Neurosurgery: Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Studies of neurosurgical pediatric patients associate treatment at low-volume hospitals and by low-volume surgeons with increased odds of adverse outcomes. Although these associations suggest that increased centralization of care could be considered, we evaluate whether confounding endogenous factors mitigate against the proposed outcome benefits. METHODS: Literature review of English language articles from 1999 to 2021. We included articles that assessed volume-outcome effects in pediatric neurosurgical patients. RESULTS: Twelve papers were included from 1999 to 2021. Primary outcomes included mortality (9), length of stay (LOS) (6), complications (4), and shunt revision/failure rates (3). Volume was measured at the hospital level (8) and at the surgeon level (6). Four papers found that higher volume hospitals had lower odds of mortality. Two papers found that hospitals with higher volume had fewer complications. Two papers found that higher volume surgeons had decreased mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.09-0.3). One paper found that high-volume surgeons had fewer complications (-2.4%; P = 0.006). After controlling for hospital factors (HF), two out of 7 analyses remained significant. Five analyses did not control for HF. CONCLUSIONS: The literature consistently demonstrates a relationship between higher hospital and surgeon volume and better outcomes for pediatric neurosurgical patients. Of the 7 articles that assessed HF, only 2 analyses found that surgical volume remained associated with better outcomes. No reports assessed the degree of centralization already present. The call for centralization of pediatric care should be tempered until variables such as hospital factors, distribution of cases, and clinical thresholds can be defined and studied.

Hospital Volume and Quality of Care for Emergency Gynecologic Care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between hospital volume and the quality of gynecologic emergency care for tubal ectopic pregnancies, ovarian torsion, and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID). METHODS: In this cross-sectional analysis, we analyzed patients who presented for emergency care for tubal ectopic pregnancies, ovarian torsion, and PID using the Premier Healthcare Database from 2006 to 2020. We measured the following outcomes: methotrexate use for ectopic pregnancy, ovarian cystectomy for torsion, and guideline-based antibiotic use for PID. For each condition, we measured outlier hospitals that performed the above interventions at below the 10th percentile. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to analyze associations between outlier care and hospital factors such as annualized mean case volume, urban or rural location, teaching status, bed capacity, and geographic region, as well as hospital-level patient population factors, including age, insurance status, and race. RESULTS: A total of 602 hospitals treated patients with tubal ectopic pregnancies, of which 21.9% were outliers, with no cases managed with methotrexate. Of 512 hospitals treating patients with ovarian torsion, 17.4% were outliers, with no cases managed with cystectomy. Of 929 hospitals that treated patients with PID, 9.9% were deemed outliers with low rates of guideline-adherent antibiotic administration. Low-volume hospitals were more likely to be outliers with low rates of use of methotrexate for ectopic pregnancy (6.7% of high-volume hospitals vs 49.7% of low-volume hospitals were outliers; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.13, 95% CI, 0.05-0.31 for high-volume hospitals) and cystectomy for torsion (34.9% of low-volume vs 2.4% of high-volume hospitals were outliers; aOR 0.05, 95% CI, 0.01-0.18 for high-volume hospitals). There was no association between hospital volume and lower rates of guideline-based antibiotic use for PID. CONCLUSION: Higher hospital volume is associated with use of conservative, fertility-preserving treatment of emergency gynecologic conditions, including ectopic pregnancy and ovarian torsion.

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

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

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

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