The Relationship Between Hospital Lung Cancer Resection Volume and Patient Mortality Risk

被引:59
作者
Kozower, Benjamin D. [1 ,2 ]
Stukenborg, George J. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Virginia Hlth Syst, Dept Surg, Charlottesville, VA 22908 USA
[2] Univ Virginia Hlth Syst, Dept Publ Hlth Sci, Charlottesville, VA 22908 USA
基金
美国医疗保健研究与质量局;
关键词
GENERAL THORACIC-SURGERY; COMORBIDITY MEASURES; OPERATIVE MORTALITY; MAJOR MORBIDITY; SURGICAL VOLUME; DOSE-RESPONSE; HEALTH-CARE; PREDICTORS; ADJUSTMENT; REGRESSION;
D O I
10.1097/SLA.0b013e31821d4bdd
中图分类号
R61 [外科手术学];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: To evaluate the volume-outcome relationship after lung cancer resection using 3 alternative measures of the effect of volume. Summary Background Data: Many studies of lung cancer resection indicate that hospital volume predicts mortality. However, controversy exists regarding the strength and validity of this association. Because thresholds of procedure volume are used to recommend the regionalization of care, investigation of the validity of the volume-outcome relationship is necessary. Methods: Lung cancer resection patients were identified in the 2007 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Hospital volume was measured using 3 different methods: as a continuous linear function, as a nonlinear function using restricted cubic splines, and as the frequently used method of quintile categories. The statistical significance of the relationship between hospital volume and mortality risk was assessed, adjusted for patient age, comorbid disease, and for correlated events within hospitals. Results: Forty thousand four hundred and sixty lung cancer resection patients from 436 hospitals were identified. All 3 models demonstrated excellent performance characteristics (C index = 0.92, Nagelkerke R-2 = 0.37). No significant association was demonstrated between hospital procedure volume and in-hospital mortality when measured as a linear or nonlinear function using splines. However, a statistically significant relationship was found for volume categorized into quintiles, although its relative contribution to the predictive capacity of the model was very small (likelihood ratio = 2.55, P = 0.04). Conclusions: The apparent impact of hospital lung cancer resection volume on mortality is dependent on how volume is defined and entered into the regression equation. Hospital lung cancer resection volume is not a predictor of mortality and should not be used as a proxy measure for surgical quality.
引用
收藏
页码:1032 / 1037
页数:6
相关论文
共 43 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], NATIONWIDE INPATIENT
[2]  
Ash A, 1999, STAT MED, V18, P375, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19990228)18:4<375::AID-SIM20>3.3.CO
[3]  
2-A
[4]   The influence of hospital volume on survival after resection for lung cancer [J].
Bach, PB ;
Cramer, LD ;
Schrag, D ;
Downey, RJ ;
Gelfand, SE ;
Begg, CB .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2001, 345 (03) :181-188
[5]   Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States [J].
Birkmeyer, JD ;
Stukel, TA ;
Siewers, AE ;
Goodney, PP ;
Wennberg, DE ;
Lucas, FL .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2003, 349 (22) :2117-2127
[6]   Measuring the quality of surgical care: Structure, process, or outcomes? [J].
Birkmeyer, JD ;
Dimick, JB ;
Birkmeyer, NJO .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, 2004, 198 (04) :626-632
[7]   Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. [J].
Birkmeyer, JD ;
Siewers, AE ;
Finlayson, EVA ;
Stukel, TA ;
Lucas, FL ;
Batista, I ;
Welch, HG ;
Wennberg, DE .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2002, 346 (15) :1128-1137
[8]   Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data [J].
Elixhauser, A ;
Steiner, C ;
Harris, DR ;
Coffey, RN .
MEDICAL CARE, 1998, 36 (01) :8-27
[9]   Hospital volume and operative mortality in cancer surgery - A national study [J].
Finlayson, EVA ;
Goodney, PP ;
Birkmeyer, JD .
ARCHIVES OF SURGERY, 2003, 138 (07) :721-725
[10]   Use of spline regression in an analysis of maternal prepregnancy body mass index and adverse birth outcomes: Does it tell us more than we already know? [J].
Gilboa, Suzanne M. ;
Correa, Adolfo ;
Alverson, Clinton J. .
ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2008, 18 (03) :196-205