Advertisement

Neurocritical Care

, 15:369 | Cite as

High-Volume Centers

  • P. VespaEmail author
  • Michael N. Diringer
  • The Participants in the International Multi-disciplinary Consensus Conference on the Critical Care Management of Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
Review

Abstract

Outcome from trauma, surgery, and a variety of other medical conditions has been shown to be positively affected by providing treatment at facilities experiencing a high volume of patients with those conditions. An electronic literature search was made to identify English-language articles available through March 2011, addressing the effect of patient treatment volume on outcome for patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage. Limited data were identified, with 16 citations included in the current review. Over 60% of hospitals fall into the lowest case-volume quartile. Outcome is influenced by patient volume, with better outcome occurring in high-volume centers treating >60 cases per year. Patients treated at low-volume hospitals are less likely to experience definitive treatment. Furthermore, transfer to high-volume centers may be inadequately arranged. Several factors may influence the better outcome at high-volume centers, including the availability of neurointensivists and interventional neuroradiologists.

Keywords

Interventional neuroradiologists Neurointensivist Transfer 

References

  1. 1.
    Nathens AB, Jurkovich GJ, Maier RV, et al. Relationship between trauma center volume and outcomes. JAMA. 2001;285:1164–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cowan JA, Dimick JB, Thompson BG, Stanley JC, Upchurch GR. Surgeon volume as an indicator of outcomes after carotid endarterectomy: an effect independent of specialty practice and hospital volume. J Am Coll Surg. 2002;195:814–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nazarian SM, Yenokyan G, Thompson RE, et al. Statistical modeling of the volume-outcome effect for carotid endarterectomy for 10 years of a statewide database. J Vasc Surg. 2008;48:343–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Freeman JV, Wang Y, Curtis JP, Heidenreich PA, Hlatky MA. The relation between hospital procedure volume and complications of cardioverter-defibrillator implantation from the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:1133–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gooiker GA, van Gijn W, Post PN, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the volume-outcome relationship in the surgical treatment of breast cancer. Are breast cancer patients better of with a high volume provider? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2010;36(suppl 1):S27–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328:1490.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laidlaw JD, Siu KH. Poor-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: outcome after treatment with urgent surgery. Neurosurgery. 2003;53:1275–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Suzuki S, Jahan R, Duckwiler GR, Frazee J, Martin N, Viñuela F. Contribution of endovascular therapy to the management of poor-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: clinical and angiographic outcomes. J Neurosurg. 2006;105:664–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pereira AR, Sanchez-Peña P, Biondi A, et al. Predictors of 1-year outcome after coiling for poor-grade subarachnoid aneurysmal hemorrhage. Neurocrit Care. 2007;7:18–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pan JW, Zhan RY, Wen L, Tong Y, Wan S, Zhou YY. Ultra-early surgery for poor-grade intracranial aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a preliminary study. Yonsei Med J. 2009;50:521–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Taylor CJ, Robertson F, Brealey D, et al. Outcome in poor grade subarachnoid hemorrhage patients treated with acute endovascular coiling of aneurysms and aggressive intensive care. Neurocrit Care, (in press).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Haug T, Sorteberg A, Finset A, Lindegaard KF, Lundar T, Sorteberg W. Cognitive functioning and health-related quality of life 1 year after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage in preoperative comatose patients (Hunt and Hess Grade V patients). Neurosurgery. 2010;66:475–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bardach NS, Zhao S, Gress DR, Lawton MT, Johnston SC. Association between subarachnoid hemorrhage outcomes and number of cases treated at California hospitals. Stroke. 2002;33:1851–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bardach NS, Olson SJ, Elkins JS, Smith WS, Lawton MT, Johnston SC. Regionalization of treatment for subarachnoid hemorrhage: a cost-utility analysis. Circulation. 2004;109:2207–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berman MF, Solomon RA, Mayer SA, Johnston SC, Yung PP. Impact of hospital-related factors on outcome after treatment of cerebral aneurysms. Stroke. 2003;34:2200–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cowan JA Jr, Dimick JB, Wainess RM, Upchurch GR Jr, Thompson BG. Outcomes after cerebral aneurysm clip occlusion in the United States: the need for evidence-based hospital referral. J Neurosurg. 2003;99:947–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cross DT 3rd, Tirschwell DL, Clark MA, et al. Mortality rates after subarachnoid hemorrhage: variations according to hospital case volume in 18 states. J Neurosurg. 2003;99:810–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Crowley RW, Yeoh HK, Stukenborg GJ, Ionescu AA, Kassell NF, Dumont AS. Influence of weekend versus weekday hospital admission on mortality following subarachnoid hemorrhage. Clinical article. J Neurosurg. 2009;111:60–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khatri R, Tariq N, Vazquez G, Suri MF, Ezzeddine MA, Qureshi AI. Outcomes after nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage at hospitals offering angioplasty for cerebral vasospasm: a national level analysis in the United States. Neurocrit Care, (in press).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Langham J, Reeves BC, Lindsay KW, et al. Variation in outcome after subarachnoid hemorrhage: a study of neurosurgical units in UK and Ireland. Stroke. 2009;40:111–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Molyneux A, Kerr R, Stratton I, et al. International subarachnoid aneurysm trial (ISAT) of neurosurgical clipping versus endovascular coiling in 2,143 patients with ruptured intracranial aneurysms: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2002;360:1267–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Solomon RA, Mayer SA, Tarmey JJ. Relationship between the volume of craniotomies for cerebral aneurysm performed at New York state hospitals and in-hospital mortality. Stroke. 1996;27:13–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Suarez JI, Zaidat OO, Suri MF, et al. Length of stay and mortality in neurocritically ill patients: impact of a specialized neurocritical care team. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:2311–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Varelas PN, Conti MM, Spanaki MV, et al. The impact of a neurointensivist-led team on a semiclosed neurosciences intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:2191–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Varelas PN, Schultz L, Conti M, et al. The impact of a neuro-intensivist on patients with stroke admitted to a neurosciences intensive care unit. Neurocrit Care. 2008;9:293–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Vespa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael N. Diringer
    • 2
  • The Participants in the International Multi-disciplinary Consensus Conference on the Critical Care Management of Subarachnoid Hemorrhage
  1. 1.Division of Neurosurgery, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLAUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Department of NeurologyWashington UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations