Multicentric analysis of performance after major lung resections by using the European Society Objective Score (ESOS)

被引:35
作者
Brunelli, Alessandro [1 ]
Varela, Gonzalo [2 ]
Van Schil, Paul [3 ]
Salati, Michele [1 ]
Novoa, Nuria [2 ]
Hendriks, Jeroen M. [3 ]
Jimenez, Marcelo F. [2 ]
Lauwers, Patrick [3 ]
机构
[1] Umberto I Reg Hosp, Div Thorac Surg, Ancona, Italy
[2] Salamanca Univ Hosp, Thorac Surg Serv, Salamanca, Spain
[3] Univ Antwerp Hosp, Dept Thorac & Vasc Surg, Antwerp, Belgium
关键词
lung resection; lung cancer; mortality; quality of care; comparative audit; risk model;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejcts.2007.10.027
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective: Outcome endpoints are still the most widely used indicators of performance. However, they need to be risk-adjusted in order to be reliable instruments of audit. Recently, the European Society Objective Score (ESOS) was developed from the online European Thoracic Surgery Database as an audit tool In this study, we applied for the first time the ESOS.01 to assess the performance of three European thoracic surgery units during three successive years of activity. Methods: This study is a retrospective analysis performed on prospective databases. We analysed 695 patients submitted to pneumonectomy (117) or lobectomy (578) for lung neoplasm at three European dedicated thoracic surgery units (unit A 264 patients, unit B 262, unit C 169) from January 2004 through December 2006. Qualified thoracic surgeons performed all the operations. No patients in this series were in the original ESOS development set. ESOS.01 was used to estimate the risk of in-hospital mortality in all. patients. Observed and predicted mortality rates were then compared within each unit by the z-test. Results: Cumulative observed mortality rates in units A, B and C were 2.3% (six cases), 2.7% (seven cases) and 4.1% (seven cases), respectively. We were not able to find statistically significant differences between observed and ESOS-predicted mortality rates. The comparison of risk-adjusted mortality rates between units did not show significant differences (unit A 3.9%, unit B 3.3%, unit C 5.6%). Conclusions: The use of ESOS.01 revealed that the performances of all units were in tine with the predicted ones during each period under analysis and did not differ between each other. The results of our study warrant future efforts to refine the ESOS model and to develop other risk-adjusted outcome indicators with the aim to establish European benchmarks of performance. (C) 2007 European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:284 / 288
页数:5
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]   The European Thoracic Surgery Database project: modelling the risk of in-hospital death following lung resection [J].
Berrisford, R ;
Brunelli, A ;
Rocco, G ;
Treasure, T ;
Utley, M .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, 2005, 28 (02) :306-311
[2]   Breaking down barriers: Helpful breakthrough statistical methods you need to understand better [J].
Blackstone, EH .
JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2001, 122 (03) :430-439
[3]   Risk-adjusted morbidity and mortality models to compare the performance of two units after major lung resections [J].
Brunelli, Alessandro ;
Morgan-Hughes, Nicholas J. ;
Refai, Majed ;
Salati, Michele ;
Sabbatini, Armando ;
Rocco, Gaetano .
JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2007, 133 (01) :88-96
[4]   Internal validation of risk models in lung resection surgery: Bootstrap versus training-and-test sampling [J].
Brunelli, Alessandro ;
Rocco, Gaetano .
JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2006, 131 (06) :1243-1247
[5]   THE QUALITY OF CARE - HOW CAN IT BE ASSESSED [J].
DONABEDIAN, A .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1988, 260 (12) :1743-1748
[6]   An innovative new concept for quality measurement in adult cardiac surgery [J].
Grover, Frederick L. .
ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2007, 83 (04) :1237-1239
[7]   Bootstrap resampling methods: Something for nothing? [J].
Grunkemeier, GL ;
Wu, YX .
ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2004, 77 (04) :1142-1144
[8]  
Mant J, 1996, J Eval Clin Pract, V2, P243, DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2753.1996.tb00054.x
[9]   A METHOD FOR PREDICTING POSTOPERATIVE LUNG-FUNCTION AND ITS RELATION TO POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS IN PATIENTS WITH LUNG-CANCER [J].
NAKAHARA, K ;
MONDEN, Y ;
OHNO, K ;
MIYOSHI, S ;
MAEDA, H ;
KAWASHIMA, Y .
ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 1985, 39 (03) :260-265
[10]  
Palmer RH, 1998, INT J QUAL HEALTH C, V10, P477