Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

John D Birkmeyer

Publications and source records attributed to John D Birkmeyer.

At least 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2005

Measuring surgical quality: what's the role of provider volume?

Although not ideal for all situations, provider volume is particularly suited for measuring surgical quality in certain contexts. Specifically, we believe that for uncommon operations with a strong volumes-outcome effect, provider volume may be the most informative performance measure. Because of the relative ease of determining provider volume, it will continue to be used in value-based purchasing and public reporting efforts. With increasing momentum from outside the profession of surgery, it is particularly important for surgeons to participate in making decisions regarding situations where volume may be an appropriate measure of quality.

General Surgery↗
PubMed2005

Specialty training and mortality after esophageal cancer resection.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons with advanced training have lower mortality rates with some surgical procedures. The objective of the current study was to investigate the impact of thoracic surgery training on mortality rates of esophageal cancer resection. METHODS: We studied esophageal cancer resection in the national Medicare population during 1998 and 1999. Operative mortality rates (in-hospital or 30-day) were compared for thoracic surgeons and other surgeons, adjusting for patient characteristics, hospital volume, and surgeon volume. Surgeons with specialty training in thoracic surgery were those certified by the American Board of Thoracic Surgery. RESULTS: Of the 1,946 patients, 625 (32%) had their operation performed by a thoracic surgeon. After adjustment for patient characteristics, mortality rates were 37% (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.82) higher for surgeons without specialty training compared with thoracic surgeons (adjusted mortality 16.5% versus 12.4%; p = 0.01). However, differences in mortality between high-volume and low-volume hospitals (24.3% versus 11.4%; p < 0.001) and surgeons (20.7% versus 10.7%; p < 0.001) were larger than those between thoracic and general surgeons. Although thoracic surgeons had lower mortality rates after adjusting for hospital volume, the effect of thoracic surgery training was no longer significant after accounting for surgeon volume (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.63). CONCLUSIONS: Specialty training in thoracic surgery has an independent association with lower mortality after esophageal resection. But specialty training appears to be less important than hospital and surgeon volume.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness in improving survival of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (NCRT) in patients undergoing surgery for esophageal carcinoma remains unclear. METHODS: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, BIOSIS Previews, and other resources were searched from January 1966 through January 2003. Randomized trials were selected on the basis of study design (NCRT followed by surgery vs surgery alone). Of 21 potential studies identified by abstract review, 6 (29%) met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Across 6 studies, a total of 374 patients underwent NCRT followed by surgery and 364 underwent surgery alone. In 5 of the 6 studies in our meta-analysis, there was a small, non-statistically significant trend toward improved survival with NCRT. Only 1 study demonstrated a statistically significant benefit to NCRT. In our summary measure for all 6 studies, we found a small, non-statistically significant trend toward improved long-term survival in the NCRT followed by surgery group (relative risk of death in the NCRT group [RR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.01; P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: NCRT followed by surgery is associated with a small, non-statistically significant improvement in overall survival. Whether this benefit is sufficient to warrant the considerable expense and risks associated with NCRT should be the subject of future larger randomized trials.

Carcinoma, Squamous Cell↗
PubMed2005

Surgeon specialty and operative mortality with lung resection.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the effect of subspecialty training on operative mortality following lung resection. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: While several different surgical subspecialists perform lung resection for cancer, many believe that this procedure is best performed by board-certified thoracic surgeons. METHODS: Using the national Medicare database 1998 to 1999, we identified patients undergoing lung resection (lobectomy or pneumonectomy) for lung cancer. Operating surgeons were identified by unique physician identifier codes contained in the discharge abstract. We used the American Board of Thoracic Surgery database, as well as physician practice patterns, to designate surgeons as general surgeons, cardiothoracic surgeons, or noncardiac thoracic surgeons. Using logistic regression models, we compared operative mortality across surgeon subspecialties, adjusting for patient, surgeon, and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, 25,545 Medicare patients underwent lung resection, 36% by general surgeons, 39% by cardiothoracic surgeons, and 25% by noncardiac thoracic surgeons. Patient characteristics did not differ substantially by surgeon specialty. Adjusted operative mortality rates were lowest for cardiothoracic and noncardiac thoracic surgeons (7.6% general surgeons, 5.6% cardiothoracic surgeons, 5.8% noncardiac thoracic surgeons, P = 0.001). In analyses restricted to high-volume surgeons (>20 lung resections/y), mortality rates were lowest for noncardiac thoracic surgeons (5.1% noncardiac thoracic, 5.2% cardiothoracic, and 6.1% general surgeons) (P < 0.01 for difference between general surgeons and thoracic surgeons). In analyses restricted to high-volume hospitals (>45 lung resections/y), mortality rates were again lowest for noncardiac thoracic surgeons (5.0% noncardiac thoracic, 5.3% cardiothoracic, and 6.1% general surgeons) (P < 0.01 for differences between all 3 groups). CONCLUSIONS: Operative mortality with lung resection varies by surgeon specialty. Some, but not all, of this variation in operative mortality is attributable to hospital and surgeon volume.

Aged↗
PubMed2005

Evidence-based practice in laparoscopic surgery: perioperative care.

Best practices for reducing risks of postoperative infection, venous thromboembolism, and nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery are uncertain. As a result, perioperative care varies widely. We reviewed evidence from randomized clinical trials on the effectiveness of interventions for postoperative infection, venous thromboembolism, and nausea and vomiting Data sources were the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials, reference lists of published trials, and randomized clinical trials published in English since 1990. Trials were also limited to those focused on patients undergoing laparoscopic surgery. Data from 98 randomized clinical trials were included in the final analysis. Routine antibiotic use in laparoscopic cholecystectomy, and possibly other clean procedures not involving placement of prostheses, is likely unnecessary. Similarly, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is probably unnecessary for low-risk patients undergoing brief procedures. Of a wide variety of methods for reducing postoperative nausea and vomiting, serotonin receptor antagonists appear the most effective and should be considered for routine prophylaxis.

Humans↗
PubMed2004

Surgical mortality as an indicator of hospital quality: the problem with small sample size.

CONTEXT: Surgical mortality rates are increasingly used to measure hospital quality. It is not clear, however, how many hospitals have sufficient caseloads to reliably identify quality problems. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the 7 operations for which mortality has been advocated as a quality indicator by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (coronary artery bypass graft [CABG] surgery, repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm, pancreatic resection, esophageal resection, pediatric heart surgery, craniotomy, hip replacement) are performed frequently enough to reliably identify hospitals with increased mortality rates. DESIGN AND SETTING: The US national average mortality rates and hospital caseloads of the 7 operations were determined using the 2000 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), and sample size calculations were performed to determine the minimum caseload necessary to reliably detect increased mortality rates in poorly performing hospitals. A 3-year hospital caseload was used for the baseline analysis, and poor performance was defined as a mortality rate double the national average. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Proportion of hospitals in the United States that performed more than the minimum caseload for each operation. RESULTS: The national average mortality rates for the 7 procedures examined ranged from 0.3% for hip replacement to 10.7% for craniotomy. Minimum hospital caseloads necessary to detect a doubling of the mortality rate were 64 cases for craniotomy, 77 for esophageal resection, 86 for pancreatic resection, 138 for pediatric heart surgery, 195 for repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm, 219 for CABG surgery, and 2668 for hip replacement. For only 1 operation did the majority of hospitals exceed the minimum caseload, with 90% of hospitals performing CABG surgery having a caseload of 219 or higher. For the remaining operations, only a small proportion of hospitals met the minimum caseload: craniotomy (33%), pediatric heart surgery (25%), repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (8%), pancreatic resection (2%), esophageal resection (1%), and hip replacement (<1%). CONCLUSION: Except for CABG surgery, the operations for which surgical mortality has been advocated as a quality indicator are not performed frequently enough to judge hospital quality.

Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal↗
PubMed2004

Potential benefits of the new Leapfrog standards: effect of process and outcomes measures.

OBJECTIVE: The Leapfrog Group standards for evidence-based hospital referral underwent significant revision in 2003. In addition to other changes, risk-adjusted mortality and process of care measures now augment or replace volume standards for some procedures. The objective of this study was to estimate the potential benefits of these newly expanded standards. METHODS: Leapfrog's 2003 standards were based on minimum volume standards alone for 2 operations (esophagectomy, pancreatectomy), volume standards and a process measure (perioperative beta blockade) for 1 operation (abdominal aortic aneurysm repair), and volume standards coupled with risk-adjusted mortality rates for 2 operations (coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG] and percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]). We used data from the 2000 Nationwide Inpatient Sample to determine eligible surgical populations, volume-outcome associations, and risk-adjusted hospital mortality rates for the 5 operations. A recent meta-analysis was used to estimate the effectiveness of perioperative beta-blocker use. RESULTS: Approximately 23,790 patients died in 2000 in the United States undergoing 1 of the 5 procedures. We estimate that full implementation of the Leapfrog standards would have averted 7818 of these deaths: CABG (4089), PCI (3016), elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (356), esophageal resection (180), and pancreatic resection (177). For CABG and PCI, standards based on risk-adjusted mortality rates would save at least 5 times more lives than those based on volume criteria alone. CONCLUSIONS: Widespread implementation of the 2003 Leapfrog standards for evidence-based referral could avert a large number of surgical deaths. For some procedures, standards comprised of process of care or direct outcome measures would be more effective than those based on volume alone.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed2004

Intensive care unit physician staffing: financial modeling of the Leapfrog standard.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate from a hospital's perspective the costs and savings, over a 1-yr period, of implementing The Leapfrog Group's Intensive Care Unit Physician Staffing (IPS) standard compared with the existing standard of nonintensivist staffing in adult intensive care units. DESIGN: Using published data, we developed a financial model of costs and savings for 6-, 12- and 18-bed intensive care units using conservative estimates for all variables. Sensitivity analyses, including a best-case and worst-case scenario, were performed to evaluate the impact of changing assumptions on the outcome of the model. SETTING: Nonrural hospitals in the United States. PATIENTS: : All adult intensive care unit patients. INTERVENTIONS: The IPS standard requires that intensive care units have a dedicated intensivist present during daytime hours. Outside of these hours, an intensivist must be immediately available by pager, and a physician or "physician extender" must be in the hospital and able to immediately reach intensive care unit patients. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Cost savings ranged from 510,000 to 3.3 million US dollars for 6- to 18-bed intensive care units. The best-case scenario demonstrated savings of 4.2-13 million US dollars. Under the worst-case scenario, there was a net cost of 890,000 to 1.3 million US dollars. CONCLUSIONS: Financial modeling of implementation of the IPS standard using conservative assumptions demonstrated cost savings to hospitals. Only under worst-case scenario assumptions did intensivist staffing result in additional cost to hospitals. These economic findings must be interpreted in the context of significant reductions in patient morbidity and mortality rates also associated with intensivist staffing. Given the magnitude of its clinical and financial impact, hospital leaders should be asking "how to" rather than "whether to" implement The Leapfrog Group's ICU Physician Staffing standard.

Cost Savings↗
PubMed2004

Regional availability of high-volume hospitals for major surgery.

Despite evidence of increased risks, a large number of patients still have surgery in low-volume hospitals. To better understand why, we used Medicare data to study the regional availability of high-volume hospitals. More than half of patients undergoing three procedures in low-volume hospitals lived in regions lacking a high-volume hospital. Some regions simply lacked enough cases to support a high-volume hospital. Other regions had enough cases but too many hospitals performing them. Although consolidation of surgical services may be feasible in some settings, volume-based referral strategies are impractical for many U.S. regions.

Health Services Accessibility↗
PubMed2003

Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Although the relation between hospital volume and surgical mortality is well established, for most procedures, the relative importance of the experience of the operating surgeon is uncertain. METHODS: Using information from the national Medicare claims data base for 1998 through 1999, we examined mortality among all 474,108 patients who underwent one of eight cardiovascular procedures or cancer resections. Using nested regression models, we examined the relations between operative mortality and surgeon volume and hospital volume (each in terms of total procedures performed per year), with adjustment for characteristics of the patients and other characteristics of the providers. RESULTS: Surgeon volume was inversely related to operative mortality for all eight procedures (P=0.003 for lung resection, P<0.001 for all other procedures). The adjusted odds ratio for operative death (for patients with a low-volume surgeon vs. those with a high-volume surgeon) varied widely according to the procedure--from 1.24 for lung resection to 3.61 for pancreatic resection. Surgeon volume accounted for a large proportion of the apparent effect of the hospital volume, to an extent that varied according to the procedure: it accounted for 100 percent of the effect for aortic-valve replacement, 57 percent for elective repair of an abdominal aortic aneurysm, 55 percent for pancreatic resection, 49 percent for coronary-artery bypass grafting, 46 percent for esophagectomy, 39 percent for cystectomy, and 24 percent for lung resection. For most procedures, the mortality rate was higher among patients of low-volume surgeons than among those of high-volume surgeons, regardless of the surgical volume of the hospital in which they practiced. CONCLUSIONS: For many procedures, the observed associations between hospital volume and operative mortality are largely mediated by surgeon volume. Patients can often improve their chances of survival substantially, even at high-volume hospitals, by selecting surgeons who perform the operations frequently.

Aged↗
PubMed2003

Regionalization of high-risk surgery and implications for patient travel times.

CONTEXT: Given the strong volume-outcome relationships observed with many surgical procedures, restricting some procedures to hospitals exceeding a minimum volume standard is advocated. However, such regionalization policies might cause unreasonable travel burdens for surgical patients. OBJECTIVE: To estimate how minimum volume standards for esophagectomy and pancreatic resection would affect how long patients must travel for these procedures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Simulated trial based on Medicare claims and US road network data. All US hospitals in the 48 continental states were in the study if their surgical procedures included esophagectomy and pancreatic resection. Data from Medicare patients (N = 15,796) undergoing these 2 procedures for cancer between 1994 and 1999 were used. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Additional travel time for patients required to change to higher-volume centers as a result of alternative hospital volume standards (procedures per year). RESULTS: With low-volume standards (1/year for pancreatectomy; 2/year for esophagectomy), approximately 15% of patients would change to higher-volume centers, with negligible effect on their travel times. Most patients would need to travel less than 30 additional minutes (74% pancreatectomy; 76% esophagectomy). Many patients already lived closer to a higher-volume hospital (25% pancreatectomy; 26% esophagectomy). Conversely, with very high-volume standards (>16/year for pancreatectomy; >19/year for esophagectomy), approximately 80% of patients would change to higher-volume centers. More than 50% of these patients would increase their travel time by more than 60 minutes. Travel times would increase most for patients living in rural areas. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients travel past a higher-volume center to undergo surgery at a low-volume hospital. If not set too high, hospital volume standards could be implemented for selected operations without imposing unreasonable travel burdens on patients.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Should volume standards for cardiovascular surgery focus only on high-risk patients?

BACKGROUND: Payers and policy makers are attempting to concentrate selected cardiovascular procedures in high-volume centers. A recent analysis of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), however, suggests that volume-based referral initiatives should focus only on high-risk patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the national Medicare database (1994 to 1999), we studied the operative mortality in patients undergoing 4 cardiovascular procedures (CABG, aortic valve replacement, mitral valve replacement, and elective abdominal aortic aneurysm repair). We defined 2 categories of patient risk: high-risk (patients in the highest 25th percentile of predicted risk on the basis of a logistic regression model) and low-risk (patients in the lowest 75th percentile). We then compared operative mortality in patients undergoing surgery at very-high volume hospitals (VHVH, highest 20th percentile of procedure volume) and very-low volume hospitals (VLVH, lowest 20th percentile of procedure volume). Absolute differences in operative mortality between VLVH and VHVH were somewhat larger in high-risk patients. However, volume-related differences in mortality were also significant for low-risk patients undergoing one of the 4 procedures. In relative terms, the effect of hospital volume was similar in both high- and low-risk patients. For high- and low-risk patients, the relative risk (RR) of mortality between VHVH and VLVH were nearly equal for CABG (RR=0.78 for low-risk patients, RR=0.77 for high risk patients), aortic valve replacement (0.73 versus 0.76), mitral valve replacement (0.73 versus 0.74), and abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (0.51 versus 0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Although the merits of volume-based referral initiatives can be debated on many grounds, there seems to be little rationale for restricting these initiatives to high-risk patients.

Aged↗
PubMed2003

Hospital volume and operative mortality in cancer surgery: a national study.

BACKGROUND: Although initiatives to regionalize cancer surgery are already under way, the relative importance of volume in cancer surgery is disputed. HYPOTHESIS: We examined surgical mortality with 8 cancer resections in the US population to better quantify the influence of hospital volume. METHODS: Using information from the all-payer Nationwide Inpatient Sample (1995-1997), we examined mortality with 8 cancer resections (N = 195 152). After dividing patients into 3 evenly sized volume groups based on hospital procedure volume (low, medium, and high), we used regression techniques to describe relationships between hospital volume and in-hospital mortality, adjusting for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Trends toward lower operative risks at high-volume hospitals were observed for 7 of the 8 procedures. However, differences between low- and high high-volume hospitals were statistically significant for only 3 operations (esophagectomy, 15.0% vs 6.5%; pancreatic resection, 13.1% vs 2.5%; and pulmonary lobectomy, 10.1% vs 8.9%, respectively). Although they did not reach statistical significance, absolute differences in mortality between low- and high-volume hospitals were greater than 1% for the following 3 procedures: gastrectomy, 8.7% vs 6.9%; cystectomy, 3.6% vs 2.5%; and pneumonectomy, 10.6% vs 8.9%, respectively. Mortality reductions for nephrectomy and colectomy were small. In general, in terms of absolute differences in mortality, the effect of volume was greatest in elderly patients. CONCLUSIONS: Operative mortality decreases with increasing hospital volume for several cancer resections. However, volume may be most important in patients who are older and at higher risk.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Do hospitals with low mortality rates in coronary artery bypass also perform well in valve replacement?

BACKGROUND: While hospital performance in coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery is reported widely, patients may find it difficult to learn about their hospital's performance in heart valve replacement. We sought to determine if a hospital's performance in CABG is correlated to its performance in heart valve replacement. METHODS: We studied operative mortality after CABG, aortic valve replacement (AVR), and mitral valve replacement (MVR) using the 1994 to 1999 national Medicare database. After excluding any hospital that did not perform at least 50 CABGs and 20 valve replacements per year we examined the correlation between hospital mortality in CABG and hospital mortality in AVR and MVR using least-squares simple linear regression models. Operative mortality was adjusted for patient characteristics using logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 684 hospitals performed 817,606 isolated CABGs, 142,488 AVRs (54% with concomitant CABG), and 61,252 MVRs (45% with concomitant CABG). Hospital mortality rates with AVR ranged from 6.0% to 13.0% between hospitals in the lowest and highest, respectively, 10th percentile of CABG performance. Similarly hospital mortality rates with MVR ranged from 10.1% to 20.5% in the lowest and highest respectively, 10th percentile of CABG performance. Adjusted mortality rates for both AVR and MVR were closely correlated with isolated CABG mortality rates (correlation coefficients 0.592 and 0.538, respectively; p = 0.001 for both correlations). In stratified analyses these correlations persisted regardless of whether valve replacement was performed with or without concomitant CABG or whether valve replacement was performed in a high- or low-volume hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital mortality rates with CABG are closely correlated with mortality rates with valve replacement. These findings suggest that shared processes and systems of care are important determinants of performance in cardiac surgery.

Adult↗