RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: There are few data in the literature regarding impact of annual hospital volume on outcomes such as mortality and length of stay (LOS) post-LVAD implantation. METHODS: We queried the nationwide inpatient sample from 2008 to 2011 using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision procedure code 37.66. We included patients ≥18 years without primary diagnosis of orthotopic heart transplant. Annual volume of LVAD implantation was computed for each hospital. Multivariable hierarchical mixed effect logistic regression models were used to determine predictors of in-hospital mortality and LOS. RESULTS: There were 1749 LVAD implants from 2008 to 2011; patients had a mean age of 55.4 years, and 23% were female. In-hospital mortality decreased from 20.9% in the first tertile (1-22 LVADs/y) to 13.7% in the third tertile (≥35 LVADs/y) of hospital volume. Median LOS decreased from 34 days in the first tertile to 28 days in third tertile of hospital volume. The adjusted odds ratios of the highest tertile of hospital volume in predicting in-hospital mortality and LOS were 0.41 (0.26-0.64, P < .001) and 0.41 (0.23-0.73, P = .003), respectively. Restricted cubic spline analysis showed that a volume threshold of >20 LVADs/year was associated with favorable mortality rates of <10%. CONCLUSIONS: High annual LVAD volume is associated with significantly decreased in-hospital mortality and LOS after LVAD implantation. Center experience is an important determinant of optimal patient outcomes.
Assuntos
Coração Auxiliar/tendências , Mortalidade Hospitalar/tendências , Hospitais com Alto Volume de Atendimentos/tendências , Adulto , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Classificação Internacional de Doenças/tendências , Tempo de Internação/tendências , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: The EndoCert initiative does not yet allow a long-term assessment of outcome quality. The assessment cannot be achieved without cooperation with the German arthroplasty registry (EPRD) and other quality assurance infrastructure, such as the quality assurance system of the nationwide healthcare insurance data for inpatient hospital treatment (QSR) by the German local healthcare fund (AOK). Therefore, the quality of care of all certified centres for joint replacement (EPZ) after primary hip and knee arthroplasty was to be examined for the first time. These data were subsequently compared to the data of the EPRD. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In EPZ that provided care to at least one AOK-insured patient in 2016, the risk-adjusted 3year revision rate and the SMR-value (standardised mortality or morbidity ratio), which is the quotient of the observed and expected revision rate, were analysed as markers for the quality of care. Annual hospital volume, type of centre and audit results were examined as possible influencing factors. RESULTS: In the group comparison, significant differences (pâ¯= 0.042) for the SMR value of the 3year revision rate were demonstrated for hip arthroplasty with regard to the EPZ type. The annual number of primary hip arthroplasties, however, did not influence the 3year revision rate. For knee arthroplasties, no effect of the defined categories on the 3year revision rate and its SMR value was observed. The comparison of our 3year revision rates with those of the EPRD showed similar results for the hip but indicated significant differences for the knee. CONCLUSION: We did not observe a correlation between quality of care and annual hospital volume in certified EPZ. However, different quality assurance procedures can lead to different results with respect to the outcome quality. Therefore, a considerably improved interaction of the German quality systems must be achieved. Participation in the EPRD is not sufficient for this. Rather, a complete report of all arthroplasties must be required, at least with the achievement of a minimum reporting rate per participating hospital. Uniform inclusion and exclusion criteria should be defined.