Are appendectomy outcomes in level I trauma centers as good as we think?

Does practice make perfect? The impact of hospital and surgeon volume on complications after intra-abdominal procedures

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in the regionalization of surgical procedures. However, evidence on the volume-outcome relationship for emergency intra-abdominal surgery is not well-synthesized. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarize evidence regarding the impact of hospital and surgeon volume on complications.

METHODS

We identified cohort studies assessing the impact of hospital/surgeon volume on postoperative complications after emergency intra-abdominal procedures, with data collected after the year 2000 through a literature search without language restriction in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. A weighted overall complication rate was calculated, and a random effect regression model was used for a summary odds ratio. A sensitivity analysis with the removal of studies contributing to heterogeneity was performed (PROSPERO: CRD42022358879).

RESULTS

The search yielded 2,153 articles, of which 9 cohort studies were included and determined to be good quality according to the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. These studies reported outcomes for the following procedures: cholecystectomy, colectomy, appendectomy, small bowel resection, peptic ulcer repair, adhesiolysis, laparotomy, and hernia repair. Eight studies (2,358,093 patients) with available data were included in the meta-analysis. Low hospital volume was not significantly associated with higher complications. In the sensitivity analysis, low hospital volume was significantly associated with higher complications when appropriate heterogeneity was achieved. Low surgeon volume was associated with higher complications, and these findings remained consistent in the sensitivity analysis.

CONCLUSION

We found that hospital and surgeon volume was significantly associated with higher complications in patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery when appropriate heterogeneity was achieved.

No Difference in Mortality Between Level I and II Trauma Centers for Combined Burn and Trauma

BACKGROUND

Trauma patients with burn injuries have higher morbidity and mortality rates compared with patients who solely experience burn or trauma injuries. There is a paucity of data regarding burn-trauma (BT) patient outcomes at level I (LI) trauma centers compared with level II (LII) centers. We hypothesized that BT patients at LI trauma centers have lower mortality rates than those at LII trauma centers.

METHODS

The Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010-2016) was queried for patients aged ≥18 y who had BT injuries. Patients treated at an LI were compared with those at an LII center with a primary outcome of in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) LOS. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

From 1971 BT patients, 1540 (78%) were treated at an LI trauma center, and 431 (22%) at an LII center. Compared with LII centers, LI BT patients had a longer median LOS (10 versus 7 d; P < 0.001) and ICU LOS (5 versus 4 d; P < 0.001). Both LI and LII centers had similar mortality rates (8.5% versus 7.0%; P = 0.300). On multivariable analysis, receiving care at an LI trauma center was not associated with decreased mortality (odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.42-1.48; P = 0.456).

CONCLUSIONS

We report that LI trauma center BT patients had an increased hospital and ICU LOS compared with those at LII centers. However, there was no significant difference in mortality between patients cared for at LI and LII trauma centers in risk-adjusted models.

Does the Halo Effect for Level 1 Trauma Centers Apply to High-Acuity Nonsurgical Admissions?

CONTEXT

The halo effect describes the improved surgical outcomes at trauma centers for nontrauma conditions.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether level 1 trauma centers have improved inpatient mortality for common but high-acuity nonsurgical diagnoses (eg, acute myocardial infarction [AMI], congestive heart failure [CHF], and pneumonia [PNA]) compared with non--level 1 trauma centers.

METHODS

The authors conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study analyzing data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database and the American Hospital Association Annual Survey Database. Patients who were admitted with AMI, CHF, and PNA between 2006-2011 in Florida and California were included. Level 1 trauma centers were matched to non-level 1 trauma centers using propensity scoring. The primary outcome was risk-adjusted inpatient mortality for each diagnosis (AMI, CHF, or PNA).

RESULTS

Of the 190,474 patients who were hospitalized for AMI, CHF, or PNA, 94,037 patients (49%) underwent treatment at level 1 trauma centers. The inpatient mortality rates at level 1 trauma centers vs non-level 1 trauma centers for patients with AMI was 8.10% vs 8.40%, respectively (P=.73); for patients with CHF, 2.26% vs 2.71% (P=.90); and for patients with PNA, 2.30% vs 2.70% (P=.25).

CONCLUSION

Level 1 trauma center designation was not associated with improved mortality for high-acuity, nonsurgical medical conditions in this study.

Assessment of the "Weekend Effect" in Lower Extremity Vascular Trauma

BACKGROUND

Studies suggest that patients admitted on weekends may have worse outcomes as compared with those admitted on weekdays. Lower extremity vascular trauma (LEVT) often requires emergent surgical intervention and might be particularly sensitive to this "weekend effect." The objective of this study was to determine if a weekend effect exists for LEVT.

METHODS

The National and Nationwide Inpatient Sample Database (2005-2014) was queried to identify all adult patients who were admitted with an LEVT diagnosis. Patient and hospital characteristics were recorded or calculated and outcomes including in-hospital mortality, amputation, length of stay (LOS), and discharge disposition were assessed. Independent predictors of outcomes were identified using multivariable regression models.

RESULTS

There were 9,282 patients admitted with LEVT (2,866 weekend admissions vs. 6,416 weekday admissions). Patients admitted on weekends were likely to be younger than 45 years (68% weekend vs. 55% weekday, P < 0.001), male (81% weekend vs. 75% weekday, P < 0.001), and uninsured (22% weekend vs. 17% weekday, P < 0.001) as compared with patients admitted on weekdays. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality (3.8% weekend vs. 3.3% weekday, P = 0.209), amputation (7.2% weekend vs. 6.6% weekday, P = 0.258), or discharge home (57.4% weekend vs. 56.1% weekday, P = 0.271). There was no clinically significant difference in LOS (median 7 days weekend vs. 7 days weekday), P = 0.009. On multivariable regression analyses, there were no statistically significant outcome differences between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This study did not identify a weekend effect in LEVT patients in the United States. This suggests that factors other than the day of admission may be important in influencing outcomes after LEVT.

Meta-analysis of unplanned readmission to hospital post-appendectomy: an opportunity for a new benchmark

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis is the most common cause of acute abdominal pain requiring surgical intervention. While many studies report readmission, a meta-analysis of readmission post-appendectomy has not been published. This meta-analysis was undertaken to determine rates and predictors of hospital readmission following appendectomy and to potentially provide a metric benchmark.

METHODS

An ethically approved PROSPERO-registered (ID CRD42017069040) meta-analysis following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, using databases PubMed and Scopus, was undertaken for studies published between January 2012 and June 2017. Articles relating to outcomes and readmissions after appendectomy were identified. Those scoring >15 for comparative studies and >10 for non-comparative studies, using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria were included in the final analysis. The odds ratios (OR) using random-effects, Mantel-Haenszel method with 95% confidence intervals (CI), were computed for each risk factor with RevMan5.

RESULTS

A total of 1757 articles reviewed were reduced to 45 qualifying studies for a final analysis of 836 921 appendectomies. 4.3% (range 0.0-14.4%) of patients were readmitted within 30 days. Significant preoperative patient factors for increased readmission were diabetes mellitus (OR 1.93, CI 1.63-2.28, P < 0.00001), complicated appendicitis (OR 3.6, CI 2.43-5.34, P < 0.00001) and open surgical technique (OR 1.39, CI 1.08-1.79, P < 0.00001). Increased readmission was not associated with gender, obesity or paediatric versus general surgeons or centres.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis identified that readmission is not uncommon post-appendectomy, occurring in one in 25 cases. The mean readmission rate of 4.3% may act as a quality benchmark for improving emergency surgical care. Targeting high-risk groups with diabetes or complicated appendicitis and increasing use of laparoscopic technique may help reduce readmission rates.

Lower emergency general surgery (EGS) mortality among hospitals with higher-quality trauma care

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing emergency general surgery (EGS) procedures are up to eight times more likely to die than patients undergoing the same procedures electively. This excess mortality is often attributed to nonmodifiable patient factors including comorbidities and physiologic derangements at presentation, leaving few targets for quality improvement. Although the hospital-level traits that contribute to EGS outcomes are not well understood, we hypothesized that facilities with lower trauma mortality would have lower EGS mortality.

METHODS

Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2008-2011), we calculated hospital-level risk-adjusted trauma mortality rates for hospitals with more than 400 trauma admissions. We then calculated hospital-level risk-adjusted EGS mortality rates for hospitals with more than 200 urgent/emergent admissions for seven core EGS procedures (laparotomy, large bowel resection, small bowel resection, lysis of adhesions, operative intervention for ulcer disease, cholecystectomy, and appendectomy). We used univariable and multivariable techniques to assess for associations between hospital-level risk-adjusted EGS mortality and hospital characteristics, patient-mix traits, EGS volume, and trauma mortality quartile.

RESULTS

Data from 303 hospitals, representing 153,544 admissions, revealed a median hospital-level EGS mortality rate of 1.21% (interquartile range, 0.86%-1.71%). After adjusting for hospital traits, hospital-level EGS mortality was significantly associated with trauma mortality quartile as well as patients' community income-level and race/ethnicity (p < 0.05 for all). Mean risk-adjusted EGS mortality was 1.09% (95% confidence interval, 0.94-1.25%) at hospitals in the lowest quartile for risk-adjusted trauma mortality, and 1.64% (95% confidence interval, 1.48-1.80%) at hospitals in the highest quartile of trauma mortality (p < 0.01). Sensitivity analyses limited to (1) high-mortality procedures and (2) high-volume facilities; both found similar trends (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients at hospitals with lower risk-adjusted trauma mortality have a nearly 33% lower risk of mortality after admission for EGS procedures. The structures and processes that improve trauma mortality may also improve EGS mortality. Emergency general surgery-specific systems measures and process measures are needed to better understand drivers of variation in quality of EGS outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiological, level III; Care management, level IV.

Hospital characteristics associated with increased conversion rates among organ donors in New England

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether hospital characteristics affect institutional performance with regard to organ donation. We sought to determine which hospital- and patient-level characteristics are associated with high organ donor conversion rates after brain death (DBD).

METHODS

Data were extracted from the regional Organ Procurement Organization (2011-2014) and other sources. Hospitals were stratified into high-conversion hospitals (HCH; upper-tertile) and low-conversion hospitals (LCH; lower-tertile) according to conversion rates. Hospital- and patient-characteristics were compared between groups.

RESULTS

There were 564 potential DBD donors in 27 hospitals. Conversion rates differed between hospitals in different states (p < 0.001). HCH were more likely to be small (median bed size 194 vs. 337; p = 0.024), non-teaching hospitals (40% vs. 88%; p = 0.025), non-trauma center (30% vs. 77%; p = 0.040). Potential donors differed between HCH and LCH in race (p < 0.01) and mechanism of injury/disease process (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

There is significant variation between hospitals in terms of organ donor conversion rates. This suggests that there is a pool of potential donors in large specialized hospitals that are not successfully converted to DBD.