4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Impact of nationwide centralization of pancreaticoduodenectomy on hospital mortality

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 99, 期 3, 页码 404-410

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bjs.8664

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The impact of nationwide centralization of pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) on mortality is largely unknown. The aim of this study was to analyse changes in hospital volumes and in-hospital mortality after PD in the Netherlands between 2004 and 2009. Methods: Nationwide data on International Classification of Diseases, ninth revision (ICD-9) code 5-526 (PD, including Whipple), patient age, sex and mortality were retrieved from the independent nationwide KiwaPrismant registry. Based on established cut-off points of annually performed PDs, hospitals were categorized as very low (fewer than 5), low (5-10), medium (11-19) or high (at least 20) volume. A subgroup analysis based on a cut-off age of 70 years was also performed. Results: Some 2155 PDs were included. The number of hospitals performing PD decreased from 48 in 2004 to 30 in 2009 (P = 0.011). In these specific years, the proportion of patients undergoing PD in a medium-or high-volume centre increased from 52.9 to 91.2 per cent (P < 0.001). Nationwide mortality rates after PD decreased from 9.8 to 5.1 per cent (P = 0.044). The mortality rate during the 6-year period was 14.7, 9.8, 6.3 and 3.3 per cent in very low-, low-, medium-and high-volume hospitals respectively (P < 0.001). The difference in mortality between medium-and high-volume centres was statistically significant (P = 0.004). The volume-outcome relationship was not influenced by age (P = 0.467). The mortality rate after PD in patients aged at least 70 years was 10.4 per cent compared with 4.4 per cent in younger patients (P < 0.001). Conclusion: With nationwide centralization of PD, the in-hospital mortality rate after this procedure decreased. Further centralization of PD is likely to decrease mortality further, especially in the elderly.

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