RESUMO
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: A robust relationship between procedure volume and clinical outcomes has been demonstrated across many surgical fields. This study assessed whether a center volume-outcome relationship exists for contemporary kidney transplantation, specifically for diabetic recipients, older recipients (aged ≥65 years), and recipients of high kidney donor profile index (KDPI ≥ 85) kidneys. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Adult kidney-only transplant recipients who underwent transplantation between 2009 and 2013 (N = 79,581). EXPOSURES: The primary exposure variable was center volume, categorized into quartiles based on the total kidney transplantation volume. Quartile 1 (Q1) centers performed a mean of fewer than 66 kidney transplantations per year, whereas Q4 centers performed a mean of more than 196 kidney transplantations per year. OUTCOMES: All-cause graft failure and mortality within 3 years of transplantation. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Multivariable Cox frailty models were used to adjust for donor characteristics, recipient characteristics, and cold ischemia time. RESULTS: Minor differences in rates of 3-year deceased donor all-cause graft failure across quartiles of center volume were observed (14.9% for Q1 vs 16.7% for Q4), including in subgroups (diabetic recipients, 18.4% for Q1 vs 19.7% for Q4; older recipients, 19.4% for Q1 vs 22.5% for Q4; recipients of high KDPI kidneys, 26.5% for Q1 vs 26.5% for Q4). Results were similar for 3-year mortality. After adjustment for donor, recipient, and graft characteristics using Cox regression, center volume was not significantly associated with all-cause graft failure or mortality within 3 years, except that diabetic recipients at Q3 centers had slightly lower mortality (compared with Q1 centers, adjusted HR of 0.85 [95% CI, 0.73-0.99]). LIMITATIONS: Potential unmeasured confounding from patient comorbid conditions and organ selection. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide little evidence that care in higher volume centers is associated with better adjusted outcomes for kidney transplant recipients, even in populations anticipated to be at increased risk for graft failure or death.
Assuntos
Hospitais com Alto Volume de Atendimentos/tendências , Hospitais com Baixo Volume de Atendimentos/tendências , Transplante de Rim/tendências , Obtenção de Tecidos e Órgãos/tendências , Transplantados , Idoso , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , Rejeição de Enxerto/diagnóstico , Rejeição de Enxerto/epidemiologia , Hospitais com Alto Volume de Atendimentos/normas , Hospitais com Baixo Volume de Atendimentos/normas , Humanos , Falência Renal Crônica/diagnóstico , Falência Renal Crônica/epidemiologia , Falência Renal Crônica/cirurgia , Transplante de Rim/normas , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Tempo , Obtenção de Tecidos e Órgãos/normas , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: How hospital case-volume affects operative outcomes and cost continues to grow in importance. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of case volume with operative outcomes and cost in cleft palate repair. METHODS: Subjects undergoing cleft palate repair between 2004 and 2015 were identified in the Pediatric Health Information System. Outcomes were compared between two groups: those undergoing treatment at a high-volume institution, and those undergoing treatment at a low-volume institution. Primary outcomes were as follows: any complication, prolonged length of stay, and increased total cost. RESULTS: Over 20,000 patients (n = 20,320) from 49 institutions met inclusion criteria. On univariate analysis, those subjects who underwent treatment at a high-volume institution had a lower rate of overall complications (3.4 percent versus 5.1 percent; p < 0.001), and lower rates of prolonged length of stay (4.5 percent versus 5.8 percent; p < 0.001) and increased total cost (48.6 percent versus 50.9 percent; p = 0.002). In multivariate regression analyses, subjects treated in high-volume centers were less likely to experience any complication (OR, 0.678; p < 0.001) and were less likely to have an extended length of stay (OR, 0.82; p = 0.005). Subjects undergoing palate repair at a high-volume institution were no less likely to incur increased total cost (OR, 1.01; p = 0.805). CONCLUSION: In institutions performing a high volume of cleft palate repairs, subjects had significantly decreased odds of experiencing a complication or prolonged length of stay. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.