Comparison of risk-scoring systems in the prediction of outcome after liver resection

Background: Risk prediction techniques commonly used in liver surgery include the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grading, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPET). This study compares the utility of these techniques along with the number of segments resected as predictive tools in liver surgery. Methods: A review of a unit database of patients undergoing liver resection between February 2008 and January 2015 was undertaken. Patient demographics, ASA, CCI and CPET variables were recorded along with resection size. Clavien-Dindo grade III–V complications were used as a composite outcome in analyses. Association between predictive variables and outcome was assessed by univariate and multivariate techniques. Results: One hundred and seventy-two resections in 168 patients were identified. Grade III–V complications occurred after 42 (24.4%) liver resections. In univariate analysis of CPET variables, ventilatory equivalents for CO2 (VEqCO2) was associated with outcome. CCI score, but not ASA grade, was also associated with outcome. In multivariate analysis, the odds ratio of developing grade III–V complications for incremental increases in VEqCO2, CCI and number of liver segments resected were 1.09, 1.49 and 2.94, respectively. Conclusions: Of the techniques evaluated, resection size provides the simplest and most discriminating predictor of significant complications following liver surgery

Esophagectomy without mortality: What can surgeons do?

Introduction: Surgical resection remains the mainstay treatment for patients with localized esophageal cancer. It is, however, a complex procedure. Mortality rate used to be high, but in recent years, death rate has been reduced to below 5% in specialized centers. Methods: Outcome of esophagectomy can be improved by paying attention to (1) appropriate patient section, (2) choice of surgical techniques and their execution, and (3) optimizing perioperative care. A volume-outcome relationship is also evident. Surgeons can perform esophagectomy without mortality, but a multi-disciplinary team management is essential to achieve this goal. © 2009 The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract.postprin

Variations and inter-relationship in outcome from emergency admissions in England: a retrospective analysis of Hospital Episode Statistics from 2005-2010.

BACKGROUND: The quality of care delivered and clinical outcomes of care are of paramount importance. Wide variations in the outcome of emergency care have been suggested, but the scale of variation, and the way in which outcomes are inter-related are poorly defined and are critical to understand how best to improve services. This study quantifies the scale of variation in three outcomes for a contemporary cohort of patients undergoing emergency medical and surgical admissions. The way in which the outcomes of different diagnoses relate to each other is investigated. METHODS: A retrospective study using the English Hospital Episode Statistics 2005-2010 with one-year follow-up for all patients with one of 20 of the commonest and highest-risk emergency medical or surgical conditions. The primary outcome was in-hospital all-cause risk-standardised mortality rate (in-RSMR). Secondary outcomes were 1-year all-cause risk-standardised mortality rate (1 yr-RSMR) and 28-day all-cause emergency readmission rate (RSRR). RESULTS: 2,406,709 adult patients underwent emergency medical or surgical admissions in the groups of interest. Clinically and statistically significant variations in outcome were observed between providers for all three outcomes (p < 0.001). For some diagnoses including heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, stroke and fractured neck of femur, more than 20% of hospitals lay above the upper 95% control limit and were statistical outliers. The risk-standardised outcomes within a given hospital for an individual diagnostic group were significantly associated with the aggregated outcome of the other clinical groups. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-level risk-standardised outcomes for emergency admissions across a range of specialties vary considerably and cross traditional speciality boundaries. This suggests that global institutional infra-structure and processes of care influence outcomes. The implications are far reaching, both in terms of investigating performance at individual hospitals and in understanding how hospitals can learn from the best performers to improve outcomes

High-Volume versus Low-Volume for Esophageal Resections for Cancer: The Essential Role of Case-Mix Adjustments based on Clinical Data

Background: Most studies addressing the volume-outcome relationship in complex surgical procedures use hospital mortality as the sole outcome measure and are rarely based on detailed clinical data. The lack of reliable information about comorbidities and tumor stages makes the conclusions of these studies debatable. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes for esophageal resections for cancer in low- versus high-volume hospitals, using an extensive set of variables concerning case-mix and outcome measures, including long-term survival. Methods: Clinical data, from 903 esophageal resections performed between January 1990 and December 1999, were retrieved from the original patients' files. Three hundred and forty-two patients were operated on in 11 low-volume hospitals (<7 resections/year) and 561 in a single high-volume center. Results: Mortality and morbidity rates were significantly lower in the high-volume center, which had an in-hospital mortality of 5 vs 13% (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, hospital volume, but also the presence of comorbidity proved to be strong prognostic factors predicting in-hospital mortality (ORs 3.05 and 2.34). For stage I and II disease, there was a significantly better 5-year survival in the high-volume center. (P = .04). Conclusions: Hospital volume and comorbidity patterns are important determinants of outcome in esophageal cancer surgery. Strong clinical endpoints such as in-hospital mortality and survival can be used as performance indicators, only if they are joined by reliable case-mix information

Outcome and quality of life after aorto-bifemoral bypass surgery

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Aorto-bifemoral bypass (AFB) is commonly performed to treat aorto-iliac disease and a durable long-term outcome is achieved. Most studies documenting beneficial outcomes after AFB have been limited to mortality and morbidity rates, costs and length of hospital stay (LOS). Few studies have examined the dependency of patients and how their perception of their own health changes after surgery. The aim of the present study was to evaluate outcome after AFB and to study its determinants.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This retrospective study was carried out in the multidisciplinary Post-Anaesthesia Care Unit (PACU) with five intensive care beds. Out of 1597 intensive care patients admitted to the PACU, 75 were submitted to infrarenal AFB and admitted to these intensive care unit (ICU) beds over 2 years. Preoperative characteristics and outcome were evaluated by comparing occlusive disease with aneurysmatic disease patients. Six months after discharge, the patients were contacted to complete a Short Form-36 questionnaire (SF-36) and to have their dependency in Activities of Daily Living (ADL) evaluated. Patient's characteristics and postoperative follow-up data were compared using Mann-Whitney U test, t test for independent groups, chi-square or Fisher's exact test. Patient preoperative characteristics were evaluated for associations with mortality using a multiple logistic regression analysis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The mortality rate was 12% at six months. Multivariate analysis identified congestive heart disease and APACHE II as independent determinants for mortality. Patients submitted to AFB for occlusive disease had worse SF-36 scores in role physical and general health perception. Patients submitted to AFB had worse SF-36 scores for all domains than a comparable urban population and had similar scores to other PACU patients. Sixty-six percent and 23% of patients were dependent in at least one activity in instrumental and personal ADL, respectively, but 64% reported having better general health.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study shows that congestive heart disease and APACHE II were risk factors for mortality after AFB surgery. Survivors who have undergone AFB perceive an improved quality of life although they are more dependent in ADL tasks and have worse scores in almost all SF-36 than the population to which they belong.</p

Patient satisfaction with quality of primary health care in Benghazi, Libya

Introduction: The Libyan National Health System (LNHS) is debated for the paradox of its performance versus impact. It has poor performance, but the national health statistics are good and competitive. There are concerted efforts to manage health care services and to regain the lost trust. A primary health care (PHC) system that focuses on preventive and promotive care is the core focus of LNHS efforts. Objectives: To assess patient satisfaction with quality of PHC assessed in terms of (a) customer profile, (b) patient satisfaction, and (c) health care-seeking behavior. Methodology: A sample of nine health centers and seven polyclinics from various locations in Benghazi, Libya were selected for gathering information by structured face-to-face interviews. A total of 310 beneficiaries were interviewed by using an Arabic translation of the Charleston Psychiatric Outpatient Satisfaction Scale. Results: The beneficiaries appear to be quite satisfied with the quality of services. Geographical zone, marital status of beneficiary, and type of facility are satisfaction-related factors. There are preferences for facilities located within the City Centre over those located elsewhere. There is also an interaction effect of the geographical zone and the type of facility in creating differences in satisfaction. Conclusions: A customer-friendly facility concept that emphasizes reception, physician interaction, and cordiality shall add value. Polyclinics require more attention as does the Al Slawy area. A few utility services might also be considered

Centralization of Esophageal Cancer Surgery: Does It Improve Clinical Outcome?

Background: The volume-outcome relationship for complex surgical procedures has been extensively studied. Most studies are based on administrative data and use in-hospital mortality as the sole outcome measure. It is still unknown if concentration of these procedures leads to improvement of clinical outcome. The aim of our study was to audit the process and effect of centralizing oesophageal resections for cancer by using detailed clinical data. Methods: From January 1990 until December 2004, 555 esophagectomies for cancer were performed in 11 hospitals in the region of the Comprehensive Cancer Center West (CCCW); 342 patients were operated on before and 213 patients after the introduction of a centralization project. In this project patients were referred to the hospitals which showed superior outcomes in a regional audit. In this audit patient, tumor, and operative details as well as clinical outcome were compared between hospitals. The outcome of both cohorts, patients operated on before and after the start of the project, were evaluated. Results: Despite the more severe comorbidity of the patient group, outcome improved after centralizing esophageal resections. Along with a reduction in postoperative morbidity and length of stay, mortality fell from 12% to 4% and survival improved significantly (P = 0.001). The hospitals with the highest procedural volume showed the biggest improvement in outcome. Conclusion: Volume is an important determinant of quality of care in esophageal cancer surgery. Referral of patients with esophageal cancer to surgical units with adequate experience and superior outcomes (outcome-based referral) improves quality of care

Quality of Care in Humanitarian Surgery

Humanitarian surgical programs are set up de novo, within days or hours in emergency or disaster settings. In such circumstances, insuring quality of care is extremely challenging. Basic structural inputs such as a safe structure, electricity, clean water, a blood bank, sterilization equipment, a post-anesthesia recovery unit, appropriate medications should be established. Currently, no specific credentials are needed for surgeons to operate in a humanitarian setting; the training of more humanitarian surgeons is desperately needed. Standard perioperative protocols for the humanitarian setting after common procedures such as Cesarean section, burn care, open fractures, and amputations and antibiotic prophylaxis, and post-operative pain management must be developed. Outcome data, especially long-term outcomes, are difficult to collect as patients often do not return for follow-up and may be difficult to trace; standard databases for post-operative infections and mortality rates should be established. Checklists have recently received significant attention as an instrument to support the improvement of surgical quality; knowing which items are most applicable to humanitarian settings remains unknown. In conclusion, the quality of surgical services in humanitarian settings must be regulated. Many other core medical activities of humanitarian organizations such as therapeutic feeding, mass vaccination, and the treatment of infectious diseases, such as tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus, are subject to rigorous reporting of quality indicators. There is no reason why surgery should be exempted from quality oversight. The surgical humanitarian community should pull together before the next disaster strikes