Is hospital procedure volume a reliable marker of quality for coronary artery bypass surgery? A comparison of risk and propensity adjusted operative and midterm outcomes

5Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background. Worse operative mortality has been reported for hospitals with low versus high coronary artery bypass grafting surgery volumes. Despite a lack of comparisons beyond the early postoperative period and evidence of surgeon-volume confounding, some have suggested that regionalization of coronary artery bypass grafting in favor of high volume institutions is warranted. Methods. We retrospectively compared operative mortality and 3-year survival in coronary artery bypass grafting patients (2001 to 2003) at a low-volume hospital (n = 504; 160 per year [median]) versus a high-volume hospital (n = 1,410; 487 per year) served by the same high-volume surgeon team. Covariate risk adjustment was done via multivariate and propensity modeling. Results. The two hospital cohorts exhibited multiple demographic and risk factor differences. Unadjusted low-volume hospital vs high-volume hospital operative mortality was similar overall (2.38% vs 2.98%; p = 0.59) with nearly identical Society of Thoracic Surgeons observed-to-expected ratios (0.83 vs 0.82), irrespective of preoperative risk category. Hospital volume did not predict operative mortality (odds ratio, 95% confidence interval = 0.82; p = 0.602). At follow-up, a total of 28 low-volume hospital deaths (5.6%) and 135 high-volume hospital deaths (9.6%) occurred at similar surgery-to-death intervals (p = 0.7). Unadjusted 0 to 3-year survival was significantly worse for high-volume hospitals (risk ratio = 1.59; 1.06 to 2.39; p = 0.026). Yet procedure volume was not independently associated with worse midterm survival after covariate (risk ratio = 1.28; 0.84 to 1.96; p = 0.247) or propensity score (risk ratio = 1.11; 0.72 to 1.71; p = 0.648) adjustment. Conclusions. Hospital and surgeon volume effects on coronary artery bypass grafting outcomes are interdependent, and therefore hospital coronary artery bypass grafting volume per se is not a reliable marker of quality. Instead, outcome quality markers should rely on thorough risk-adjustment based on detailed clinical databases, possibly including annual and cumulative surgeon volume. © 2005 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Zacharias, A., Schwann, T. A., Riordan, C. J., Durham, S. J., Shah, A., Papadimos, T. J., … Habib, R. H. (2005). Is hospital procedure volume a reliable marker of quality for coronary artery bypass surgery? A comparison of risk and propensity adjusted operative and midterm outcomes. Annals of Thoracic Surgery, 79(6), 1961–1969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.athoracsur.2004.12.002

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free