4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Outcomes of Operative and Nonoperative Treatment of Thoracic Empyema: A Population-Based Study

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 108, 期 5, 页码 1456-1463

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2019.05.090

关键词

-

资金

  1. Queen's University Department of Surgery
  2. ICES - Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The optimal management of thoracic empyema remains unclear. This study compared mortality and readmission risk after operative vs nonoperative treatment of thoracic empyema. Methods. Administrative universal health care datawere used to conduct a retrospective population-based cohort study of thoracic empyema inOntario, Canada. Individuals aged 18 years or older with a hospital discharge diagnosis of thoracic empyema from January 1, 1996, to December 31, 2015, were included. Treatment approach was classified as nonoperative (ie, chest tube with or without fibrinolytics) or operative (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery [VATS] or open decortication). Modified Poisson regression was used to estimate adjusted risk ratios (RRadj) between treatment (open decortication was the reference group) and (1) death and (2) readmission. Analyses were also stratified by year of admission in 5-year intervals. Results. The study cohort comprised 9014 hospitalized individuals. Individuals treated nonoperatively had higher mortality risk as an inpatient (17.2% vs 10.6%; RRadj, 1.32-1.54), at 30 days (11.1% vs 4.2%; RRadj, 1.86-3.38), 6 months (26.6% vs 15.0%; RRadj, 1.38-1.59), and 1 year (32.3% vs 18.8%; RRadj, 1.38-1.59). No differences in 90- day readmission risk were observed. No effect measure modification was observed in models stratified by year of admission. Conclusions. Nonoperative management of thoracic empyema was associated with higher risk of mortality compared with surgical decortication. Early thoracic surgical consultation is recommended. (C) 2019 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据