Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Erfahrungen mit Mindestmengen in der Herzchirurgie

Minimum provider volumes in heart surgery

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Der Chirurg Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die Einführung von Mindestmengen (Fallzahlengrenzwert) für die Ausführung bestimmter medizinischer Eingriffe ist seit längerer Zeit Gegenstand wissenschaftlicher Untersuchungen und gesundheitspolitischer Kontroverse. Im Mittelpunkt der Diskussion steht dabei die Hypothese, dass durch Mindestmengen die operative Qualität und die Kosteneffizienz gesteigert werden könnten. In Deutschland wurde durch das Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB) V die gesetzliche Voraussetzung für die Implementierung von Mindestmengen geschaffen. Der vorliegende Artikel behandelt die aktuelle Studienlage zu Mindestmengen in der Herzchirurgie, wobei sich die Ausführungen auf die Koronarchirurgie konzentrieren, da bisher nur für diese größere Untersuchungen vorliegen.

Abstract

The introduction of minimum provider volumes for certain medical procedures has been the subject of scientific investigation and political controversy for quite a while. The core of the discussion focuses on the hypothesis that minimum provider volumes could significantly improve operative results and cost efficiency. In Germany the Fifth Volume of Social Law (Sozialgesetzbuch V) set the legal stage for the implementation of minimum provider volumes. This article is a brief review on the experience with minimum provider volumes in cardiac surgery. The main focus is on coronary artery bypass surgery, as this happens to be the most frequently investigated procedure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Literatur

  1. Bender R, Grouven U (2006) Possibilities and limitations of statistical regression models for the calculation of threshold values for minimum provider volumes. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 100: 93–98

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Betensky RA, Christian CK, Gustafsson ML et al. (2006) Hospital volume versus outcome: an unusual example of bivariate association. Biometrics 62: 598–604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB (2004) Potential benefits of the new Leapfrog standards: Effect of procress and outcome measures. Surgery 135: 569–575

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Crawford FA, Anderson RP, Clark RE et al. (1996) Volume requirements for cardiac surgery credentialing: a critical examination. The Ad Hoc Committee on Cardiac Surgery Credentialing of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Ann Thorac Surg 61: 12–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dudley RA, Johansen KL, Brand R et al. (2000) Selcetive referral to high-volume hospitals: estimating potentially avoidable deaths. JAMA 283: 1159–1166

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Epstein AJ, Rathore SS, Krumholz HM, Volpp KGM (2005) Volume-based referral for cardiovascular procedures in the United States: a cross-sectional regression analysis. BMC Health Serv Res 5: 42

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Flood AB, Scott WR, Ewy W (1984) Does practice make perfect? Part I: The relationship between hospital volume and outcomes for selected diagnostic categories. Med Care 22: 98–114

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Grumbach K, Anderson GM, Luft HS et al. (1995) Regionalization of cardiac surgery in the United States and Canada. Geographic access, choice and outcomes. JAMA 274: 1282–1288

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Hannan EL, Kilburn H, Bernhard H et al. (1991) Coronary artery bypass surgery: the relationship between in-hospital mortality rate and surgicl volume after controlling for clinical risk factors. Med Care 29: 1094–1107

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Hannan EL (1999) The relation between volume and outcome in health care. N Engl J Med 340: 1677–1679

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hannan EL, Wu C, Ryan TL et al. (2003) Do hospitals and surgeons with higher coronary artery bypass graft surgery volumes still have lower risk-adjusted mortality rates? Circulation 108: 795–801

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Luft HS, Bunker JP, Enthoven HC (1979) Should operations be regionalized? The empirical relation between surgical volume and mortality. N Engl J Med 301: 1364–1369

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Luft HS, Romano PS (1993) Chance, continuity, and change in-hospital mortality rates. Coronary artery bypass garft patients in California hospitals, 1983 to 1989. JAMA 270: 331–337

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Millstein A, Galvin RS, Delbanco SF et al. (2000) Improving the safety of health care: the leapfrog initiative. Eff Clin Pract 3: 313–316

    Google Scholar 

  15. O‘Connor GT, Plume SK, Olmstead EM et al. (1991) A regional prospective study of in-hospital mortality associated with coronary artery bypass grafting. The Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. JAMA 266: 803–809

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Peterson ED, Coombs LP, DeLong ER et al. (2004) Procedural volume as a marker of quality for CABG surgery. JAMA 291: 195–201

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Schrader P, Grouven U, Bender R (2007) Is it possible to calculate minimum provider volumes for total knee replacement using routine data? Results of a threshold value analysis of german quality assurance data for inpatient treatment. Orthopade: Epub ahead of print

  18. Shahian DM, Normand S-LT (2003) The volume-outcome relationship: from Luft to Leapfrog. Ann Thorac Surg 75: 1048–1058

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Shahian DM, Silverstein T, Lovett AF et al. (2007) Comparison of clinical and administrative data sources for hospital coronary artery bypass graft surgery report cards. Circulation 115: 1518–1527

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Showstack JA, Rosenfeld KE, Garnick DW et al. (1987) Association of volume with outcome of coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Scheduled vs. nonscheduled operations. JAMA 257: 785–789

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Wu C, Hannan EL, Ryan TL et al. (2004) Is the impact of hospital and surgeon volumes on the In-hospital mortality rate for coronary artery bypass graft surgery limited topatients at high risk? Circulation 110: 784–789

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. IQWiG (2006) Entwicklung und Anwendung von Modellen zur Berechnung von Schwellenwerten bei Mindestmengen für die Koronarchirurgie. Abschlussbericht B05/01b. Köln: Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG), Juni 2006. http://www.iqwig.de/index.437.html

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Abteilung für Herz- und Gefäßchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum, Hugstetterstraße 55, 79106, Freiburg, Deutschland

    H.J. Geißler & F. Beyersdorf

Authors
  1. H.J. Geißler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Beyersdorf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H.J. Geißler.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Geißler, H., Beyersdorf, F. Erfahrungen mit Mindestmengen in der Herzchirurgie. Chirurg 78, 994–998 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-007-1413-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00104-007-1413-6

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation