Faculty Opinions recommendation of The Impact of Surgical Center Volume on Reoperation Risk after Mid Urethral Sling.

Author(s):  
James Forde ◽  
Stefanie Croghan
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Benedikt Schrage ◽  
Uwe Zeymer ◽  
Gilles Montalescot ◽  
Stephan Windecker ◽  
Pranas Serpytis ◽  
...  

Background Little is known about the impact of center volume on outcomes in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between center volume, treatment strategies, and subsequent outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Methods and Results In this subanalysis of the randomized CULPRIT‐SHOCK (Culprit Lesion Only PCI Versus Multivessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock) trial, study sites were categorized based on the annual volume of acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock into low‐/intermediate‐/high‐volume centers (<50; 50–100; and >100 cases/y). Subjects from the study/compulsory registry with available volume data were included. Baseline/procedural characteristics, overall treatment, and 1‐year all‐cause mortality were compared across categories. n=1032 patients were included in this study (537 treated at low‐volume, 240 at intermediate‐volume, and 255 at high‐volume centers). Baseline risk profile of patients across the volume categories was similar, although high‐volume centers included a larger number of older patients. Low‐/intermediate‐volume centers had more resuscitated patients (57.5%/58.8% versus 42.2%; P <0.01), and more patients on mechanical ventilation in comparison to high‐volume centers. There were no differences in reperfusion success despite considerable differences in adjunctive pharmacological/device therapies. There was no difference in 1‐year all‐cause mortality across volume categories (51.1% versus 56.5% versus 54.4%; P =0.34). Conclusions In this study of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock, considerable differences in adjunctive medical and mechanical support therapies were observed. However, we could not detect an impact of center volume on reperfusion success or mortality.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 502-502
Author(s):  
Kiwoon Joshua Baeg ◽  
Cynthia Harris ◽  
Mi Ri Lee ◽  
Jacob Andrew Martin ◽  
Sheila Rustgi ◽  
...  

502 Background: Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are relatively rare tumors, where patients seek care at medical centers with varying levels of expertise. While treatment center volume is associated with better survival in multiple cancers, it remains unknown whether the same applies to GEP-NETs. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of center volume on GEP-NET treatment outcomes. Methods: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry linked to Medicare claims data in this study. We included patients diagnosed between 1995-2010 who had no HMO coverage, participated in Medicare parts A and B, were older than 65 at diagnosis, had full tumor grade information, and had no secondary cancer. We used Medicare claims to identify the medical centers at which patients received GEP-NET treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, somatostatin analogues, or radiation therapy). Center volume was divided into tiers – low, medium, and high – based on the number of unique GEP-NET patients treated by a medical center over two years. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression were used to assess the association between volume and disease-specific survival (DSS). Results: We identified 1025 GEP-NET patients, of whom 65%, 28%, and 7% received treatment at low, medium, and high volume centers, respectively. Surgery was the most common first treatment (84-90%). Comorbidity and tumor stage distribution were similar across tiers, but the distribution of patients with poorly-differentiated tumors differed significantly (p < 0.001). Median DSS for patients at low and medium centers were 3.7 years and 6.6 years, respectively, but was not reached for patients at high volume centers. After adjusting for confounders, patients treated at high volume centers had better survival than those treated in low volume centers (HR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.30-0.99). However, no difference in survival was noted at medium volume centers (HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.78-1.22). Conclusions: Our results suggest that centers with expertise in GEP-NET treatment have better patient outcomes. Thus, centralization of care, particularly of more difficult cases, may lead to improved patient outcomes.


Author(s):  
Zhizhou Yang ◽  
Melanie P. Subramanian ◽  
Yan Yan ◽  
Bryan F. Meyers ◽  
Benjamin D. Kozower ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
pp. e100-e101
Author(s):  
Alexander S. Fairman ◽  
Nathan Belkin ◽  
Benjamin M. Jackson ◽  
Paul J. Foley ◽  
Venkat R. Kalapatapu ◽  
...  

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawid Pieper ◽  
Tim Mathes ◽  
Mark Roger Marshall

2020 ◽  
Vol 220 (3) ◽  
pp. 793-799
Author(s):  
Asishana A. Osho ◽  
Muath M. Bishawi ◽  
Elbert E. Heng ◽  
Ejiro Orubu ◽  
Aaron Amardey-Wellington ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e15597-e15597
Author(s):  
Irene S. Yu ◽  
Shiru Lucy Liu ◽  
Valeriya O. Zaborska ◽  
Tyler Raycraft ◽  
Howard John Lim ◽  
...  

e15597 Background: Treatment of advanced HCC is complex and involves specialized multidisciplinary care. We aimed to characterize the impact of geography and center volume on access to care and outcomes in HCC patients (pts). Methods: HCC pts who received sorafenib in British Columbia from 2008 to 2016 were included. Pts were stratified by rural vs urban status (distance from cancer center), and high volume (HVC) vs lower volume (LVC) centers. Chi-square tests and Kaplan Meier were used to test for differences between groups. Results: Of 288 pts identified, median was age 62 (IQR 56-72), 81% male, 40% Asian, 82% ECOG 0/1 and 90% Child Pugh A. Hepatitis C (32%), hepatitis B (31%) and alcohol (25%) related liver disease were most common. Most pts resided within 100 km (85%) and 173 (60%) were treated at HVC. Ethnicity, liver disease etiology, ECOG and M1 disease varied by stratification (Table). Rural pts were more likely to see an internist (30% vs 16%, p=0.04); access to other subspecialists was similar (all p>0.05). HVC pts were more likely to see a hepatologist (83% vs 19%), hepatobiliary surgeon (57% vs 42%), and/or interventional radiologist (32% vs 13%) compared to LVC pts (all p<0.01). Number of specialists seen correlated with survival (36.4 vs 20.3 vs 12.6 mo for ≥ 3 vs 2 vs 1 specialist(s), p<0.01). Median OS from time of diagnosis was higher for HVC pts (24.7 vs 13.2 mo, p<0.01), but similar when stratified by distance (p=0.44) and from sorafenib initiation (p=0.66). Conclusions: HCC patients treated at a HVC are more likely to see specialized clinicians and have improved survival outcomes. Further research is needed to understand social and clinical factors that influence these findings. [Table: see text]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document