The effect of centralization of caseload for primary brain tumor surgeries: trends from 2001–2007
- 319 Downloads
Improved patient outcomes have been associated with high-caseload hospitals for a multitude of conditions. This study analyzed adult patients undergoing surgical resection or biopsy of primary brain tumors. The aim of this study is two-fold: (1) to evaluate whether the trend towards centralization of primary brain tumor care in the US has continued during the period of between 2001 and 2007, and (2) to analyze volume-outcome effects.
Surgical volume trends of adults undergoing resection/biopsy of primary supratentorial brain tumors were analyzed using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. High- and low-caseload hospitals were defined as those performing in the highest and lowest quintile of procedures, respectively. Length of stay (LOS), mortality and discharge disposition were the main outcomes of interest.
NIS estimated 124,171 patients underwent resection/biopsy of primary supratentorial brain tumors between 2001 and 2007 in the US. The average number of annual resections in the highest 2 % and lowest 25 % caseload hospitals were 322 and 12 cases, respectively. Surgeries in high-caseload hospitals increased by 137 %, while those in low-caseload centers declined by 16.0 %. Overall, mortality decreased 35 %, with a reduction of 45 % in high- (from 2.2 % to 1.2 %) and 19 % in low- (from 3.2 % to 2.6 %) caseload hospitals. High-caseload centers had lower LOS than hospitals with lower caseload centers (6.4 vs. 8.0 days, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that patients treated in low-volume hospitals had an increased risk of death (OR 1.8, CI: 1.2-2.7, p = 0.006) and adverse discharge (OR 1.4, CI: 1.1-1.7, p = 0.01).
Neurosurgical caseload at the nation’s high volume craniotomy centers has continued to rise disproportionately, while low-caseload centers have seen a decrease in overall surgical volume. Over the time period between 2001 and 2007 there was a trend towards improved in-hospital mortality, LOS and discharge disposition for all hospitals; however, the trend is convincingly favorable for high-caseload hospitals.
KeywordsCaseload centralization Volume-outcome relationship Primary brain tumor Craniotomy Mortality
We thank Sherry Brandon for editorial and administrative help with this manuscript.
Conflicts of interest
- 10.Cowan JA Jr, Dimick JB, Leveque JC, Thompson BG, Upchurch GR Jr, Hoff JT (2003) The impact of provider volume on mortality after intracranial tumor resection. J Neurosurgery 52(1):48–53, discussion 53–4Google Scholar
- 22.Malenka DJ, McGrath PD, Wennberg DE, Ryan TJ Jr, Kellett MA Jr, Shubrooks SJ Jr, Bradley WA, Hettlemen BD, Robb JF, Hearne MJ, Silver TM, Walkings MW, O’Meara JR, VerLee PN, O’Rourke DJ (1999) The relationship between operator volume and outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions in high volume hospitals in 1994–1996: the northern New England experience. Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. J Am Coll Cardiol 34(5):1471–1480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Meyerhardt JA, Tepper JE, Niedzwiecki D, Hollis DR, Schrag D, Ayanian JZ, O’Connell MJ, Weeks JC, Mayer RJ, Willett CG, MacDonald JS, Benson AB 3rd, Fuchs CS (2004) Impact of hospital procedure volume on surgical operation and long-term outcomes in high-risk curatively resected rectal cancer: findings from the Intergroup 0114 Study. J Clin Oncol 22(1):166–174PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Quality of Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Databases (2011) Nationwide Inpatient Sample http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/nisoverview.jsp. Accessed 20 Dec 2011.
- 31.Stephens DJ, Saunders JK, Belsley S, Trivedi A, Ewing DR, Iannace V, Capella RF, Wasielewski A, Moran S, Schmidt HJ, Ballantyne GH (2008) Short-term outcomes for super-super obese (BMI > or =60 kg/m2) patients undergoing weight loss surgery at a high-volume bariatric surgery center: laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding, laparoscopic gastric bypass, and open tubular gastric bypass. Surg Obes Relat Dis 4(3):408–415PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Suhr D (2009) Paper 058–2009: Selecting a Stratified Sample with PROC SURVEYSELECT. SAS Global Forum.Google Scholar
- 36.Zahn R, Gottwik M, Hochadel M, Senges J, Zeymer U, Vogt A, Meinertz T, Dietz R, Hauptmann KE, Grube E, Kerber S, Sechtem U, Registry of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausarzte (ALKK) (2008) Volume-outcome relation for contemporary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in daily clinical practice: is it limited to high-risk patients? Results from the Registry of Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausarzte (ALKK). Heart 94(3):329–335PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar