Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Objective

Limited data exist exploring the relationship between multispecialty surgical collaboration and outcomes in general thoracic surgery. To address this, the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) was analyzed to determine whether the presence of an on-site cardiac surgery program is associated with improved general thoracic surgery outcomes.

Methods

The NIS (1999-2008) was utilized to identify 389,959 patients who had a lobectomy, pneumonectomy, or esophagectomy. Short-term outcomes of patients undergoing these procedures were compared between hospitals with and without an on-site cardiac surgery program. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine patient and hospital predictors of mortality and morbidity.

Results

During the study period, patients undergoing lobectomy (n = 314,130), pneumonectomy (n = 34,860), or esophagectomy (n = 40,969) were identified. Univariate analysis demonstrated lower mortality for lobectomy (P < 0.001) and esophagectomy (P < 0.001) but not pneumonectomy (P = 0.344) in hospitals with a cardiac surgery program. All-cause morbidity was significantly lower for all 3 procedures in hospitals with a cardiac surgery program. However, multivariate analysis demonstrated that a cardiac surgery program was not an independent predictor when adjusted for known confounders, particularly procedure volume and hospital academic teaching status.

Conclusions

The presence of an on-site cardiac surgery program is not in and of itself associated with improved general thoracic surgery outcomes. The presence of a cardiac surgery program is likely a surrogate for other known predictors of improved outcomes such as hospital teaching status and procedure volume.

Keywords

thoracic surgery comparative effectiveness surgical outcomes

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

WWL.

Visser

Ubbink

et al. The influence of provider characteristics on resection rates and survival in patients with localized non-small cell lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2008; 60: 441–451.18164099

Birkmeyer

JD.

Finlayson

EV.

Birkmeyer

. Volume standards for high-risk surgical procedures: potential benefits of the Leapfrog initiative. Surgery 2001; 130: 415–422.11562662

Birkmeyer

JD.

Siewers

AE.

Finlayson

EVA

et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 1128–1137.11948273

Birkmeyer

JD.

Stukel

TA.

Siewers

et al. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003; 349: 2117–2127.14645640

Birkmeyer

JD.

Warshaw

AL.

Finlayson

et al. Relationship between hospital volume and late survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery 1999; 126: 178–183.10455881

Paul

Sedrakyan

Chiu

Y-L

et al. Outcomes after lobectomy using thoracoscopy vs thoracotomy: a comparative effectiveness analysis utilizing the nationwide inpatient sample database. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2013; 43: 813–817.22826474

Shapiro

Swanson

SJ.

Wright

et al. Predictors of major morbidity and mortality after pneumonectomy utilizing the Society for Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database. Ann Thorac Surg 2010; 90: 927–935.20732520

Varghese

TK.

Wood

DE.

Farjah

et al. Variation in esophagectomy outcomes in hospitals meeting Leapfrog volume outcome standards. Ann Thorac Surg 2011; 91: 1003–1010.21440116

Wright

CD.

Gaissert

HA.

Grab

et al. Predictors of prolonged length of stay after lobectomy for lung cancer: a Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database risk-adjustment model. Ann Thorac Surg 2008; 85: 1857–1865.18498784

10.

Wright

CD.

Kucharczuk

JC.

O’Brien

et al. Predictors of major morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a Society of Thoracic Surgeons General Thoracic Surgery Database risk adjustment model. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2009; 137: 587–596.19258071

11.

Bach

PB.

Cramer

LD.

Schrag

et al. The influence of hospital volume on survival after resection for lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 181–188.11463014

12.

Ben-David

Ang

Grobmyer

et al. Esophagectomy in the state of Florida: is regionalization of care warranted? Am Surg 2012; 78: 291–295.22524765

13.

Colavita

PD.

Belyansky

Walters

et al. Nationwide inpatient sample: have antireflux procedures undergone regionalization? J Gastrointest Surg 2013; 17: 6–13.22911123

14.

Sundaresan

McLeod

Irish

et al. Early results after regionalization of thoracic surgical practice in a single-payer system. Ann Thorac Surg 2013; 95: 472–479.23261113

15.

Fletcher

GF.

Berra

Fletcher

et al. The integrated team approach to the care of the patient with cardiovascular disease. Curr Probl Cardiol 2012; 37: 369–397.22884247

16.

Vinocur

JM.

Menk

JS.

Connett

et al. Surgical volume and center effects on early mortality after pediatric cardiac surgery: 25-year North American experience from a multi-institutional registry. Pediatr Cardiol 2013; 34: 1226–1236.23377381

17.

Press

MJ.

Michelow

MD.

MacPhail

. Care coordination in accountable care organizations: moving beyond structure and incentives. Am J Manag Care 2012; 18: 778–780.23286608

18.

Lee

Sarkaria

IS.

Luketich

. Surgeon proficiency and outcomes in esophagectomy: a perspective and comment on an analysis of the Swedish Cancer Registry. J Thorac Dis 2017; 9: E279–E281.28449520

19.

Elixhauser

Steiner

Harris

et al. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care 1998; 36: 8–27.9431328

20.

Fuchs

HF.

Harnsberger

CR.

Broderick

et al. Mortality after esophagectomy is heavily impacted by center volume: retrospective analysis of the nationwide inpatient sample. Surg Endosc 2017; 31: 2491–2497.27660245

21.

Al-Sahaf

Lim

. The association between surgical volume, survival and quality of care. J Thorac Dis 2015; 7(Suppl 2): S152–S155.25984361

22.

Park

SY.

Park

I-K.

Hwang

et al. Immediate postoperative care in the general thoracic ward is safe for low-risk patients after lobectomy for lung cancer. Korean J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2011; 44: 229–235.22263157

23.

Metzger

Bollschweiler

Vallböhmer

et al. High volume centers for esophagectomy: what is the number needed to achieve low postoperative mortality? Dis Esophagus 2004; 17: 310–314.15569369

24.

Herr

HW.

Faulkner

JR.

Grossman

et al. Surgical factors influence bladder cancer outcomes: a cooperative group report. J Clin Oncol 2004; 22: 2781–2789.15199091

25.

Hulscher

JBF.

van Sandick

JW.

de Boer

AGEM

et al. Extended transthoracic resection compared with limited transhiatal resection for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1662–1669.

26.

Verhoef

van de Weyer

Schaapveld

et al. Better survival in patients with esophageal cancer after surgical treatment in university hospitals: a plea for performance by surgical oncologists. Ann Surg Oncol 2007; 14: 1678–1687.17294070

27.

Bhamidipati

CM.

Stukenborg

GJ.

Ailawadi

et al. Pulmonary resections performed at hospitals with thoracic surgery residency programs have superior outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2013; 145: 60–67.23141034

28.

Torchiana

DF.

Meyer

. Use of administrative data for clinical quality measurement. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005; 129: 1223–1225.15942560

29.

Cooke

DT.

Wisner

. Who performs complex noncardiac thoracic surgery in United States academic medical centers? Ann Thorac Surg 2012; 94: 1060–1064.22609122

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.25 MB

0.14 MB

Effect of On-Site Cardiac Surgery Program on General Thoracic Surgery Outcomes

Abstract

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material