Journal of Gastrointestinal Surgery

, Volume 11, Issue 10, pp 1242–1252 | Cite as

Trends and Disparities in Regionalization of Pancreatic Resection

  • Taylor S. Riall
  • Karl A. Eschbach
  • Courtney M. TownsendJr.
  • William H. Nealon
  • Jean L. Freeman
  • James S. Goodwin
Article

Abstract

Background

The current recommendation is that pancreatic resections be performed at hospitals doing >10 pancreatic resections annually.

Objective

To evaluate the extent of regionalization of pancreatic resection and the factors predicting resection at high-volume centers (>10 cases/year) in Texas.

Methods

Using the Texas Hospital Inpatient Discharge Public Use Data File, we evaluated trends in the percentage of patients undergoing pancreatic resection at high-volume centers (>10 cases/year) from 1999 to 2004 and determined the factors that independently predicted resection at high-volume centers.

Results

A total of 3,189 pancreatic resections were performed in the state of Texas. The unadjusted in-hospital mortality was higher at low-volume centers (7.4%) compared to high-volume centers (3.0%). Patients resected at high-volume centers increased from 54.5% in 1999 to 63.3% in 2004 (P = 0.0004). This was the result of a decrease in resections performed at centers doing less than five resections/year (35.5% to 26.0%). In a multivariate analysis, patients who were >75 (OR = 0.51), female (OR = 0.86), Hispanic (OR = 0.58), having emergent surgery (OR = 0.39), diagnosed with periampullary cancer (OR = 0.68), and living >75 mi from a high-volume center (OR = 0.93 per 10-mi increase in distance, P < 0.05 for all OR) were less likely to be resected at high-volume centers. The odds of being resected at a high-volume center increased 6% per year.

Conclusions

Whereas regionalization of pancreatic resection at high-volume centers in the state of Texas has improved slightly over time, 37% of patients continue to undergo pancreatic resection at low-volume centers, with more than 25% occurring at centers doing less than five per year. There are obvious demographic disparities in the regionalization of care, but additional unmeasured barriers need to be identified.

Keywords

Pancreatic resection Volume–outcome relationship Regionalization of care 

References

  1. 1.
    Gordon TA, Burleyson GP, Tielsch JM, Cameron JL. The effects of regionalization on cost and outcome for one general high-risk surgical procedure. Ann Surg 1995;221:43–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lieberman MD, Kilburn H, Lindsey M, Brennan MF. Relation of perioperative deaths to hospital volume among patients undergoing pancreatic resection for malignancy. Ann Surg 1995;222:638–645.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ho V, Heslin MJ. Effect of hospital volume and experience on in-hospital mortality for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg 2003;237:509–514.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Heek NT, Kuhlmann KFD, Scholten RJ, et al. Hospital volume and mortality after pancreatic resection. A systematic review and an evaluation of intervention in the Netherlands. Ann Surg 2005;242:781–790.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Birkmeyer JD, Sun Y, Goldfaden A, Birkmeyer NJO, Stukel TA. Volume and process of care in high-risk cancer surgery. Cancer 2006;106:2476–2481.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kotwall CA, Maxwell JG, Brinker CC, Koch GG, Covington DL. National estimates of mortality rates for radical pancreaticoduodenectomy in 25,000 patients. Ann Surg Oncol 2002;9:847–854.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gouma DJ, van Geenen RCI, van Gulik TM, et al. Rates of complications and death after pancreaticoduodenectomy: Risk factors and the impact of hospital volume. Ann Surg 2000;6:786–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gordon TA, Bowman HM, Bass EB, et al. Complex gastrointestinal surgery: Impact of provider experience on clinical and economic outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 1999;189:46–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gordon TA, Bowman HM, Tielsch JM, Bass EB, Burleyson GP, Cameron JL. Statewide regionalization of pancreaticoduodenectomy and its effect on in-hospital mortality. Ann Surg 1998;228:71–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sosa JA, Bowman HM, Bass EB, et al. Importance of hospital volume in the overall management of pancreatic cancer. Ann Surg 1998;228:429–438.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Birkmeyer JD, Warshaw AL, Finlayson SRG, Grove MR, Tosteson ANA. Relationship between hospital volume and late survival after pancreaticoduodenectomy. Surgery 1999;126:178–183.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, Goodney PP, Wennberg DE, Lucas FL. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2117–2127.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosemurgy AS, Bloomston M, Serafini FM, et al. Frequency with which surgeons undertake pancreaticoduodenectomy determines length of stay, hospital charges, and in-hospital mortality. J Gastrointest Surg 2001;5:21–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Birkmeyer JD. Raising the bar for pancreaticoduodenectomy. Ann Surg Oncol 2002;9:826–827.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Birkmeyer JD, Dimick JB. Potential benefits of the new Leapfrog standards: Effect of process and outcomes measures. Surgery 2004;135:569–575.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census 2000 Summary File 1. Prepared by the U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    DeNavas-Walt C, Proctor BD, Lee CH. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-231. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2006.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Texas Department of State Health Services. Medically Underserved Areas (MUAs) and Populations (MUPs) in Texas. http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/chs/hprc/mua.shtm (Accessed 3/26/2007).
  19. 19.
    Texas Department of State Health Services. Texas Health Care Information Collection Center. http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/thcic/Hospitals/HospitalData.shtm. (Accessed 3/19/2007).
  20. 20.
    Bunker JP, Luft HS, Enthoven A. Should surgery be regionalized? Surg Clin North Am 1982;62:657–668.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McPhee JT, Hill JS, Whalen GF, et al. Perioperative mortality for pancreatic cancer: A national perspective. Ann Surg 2007; 246:246–253PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Marth NJ, Goodman DC. Regionalization of high-risk surgery and implications for patient travel times. JAMA 2003;290:2703–2708.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meguid RA, Ahuja N, Chang DC. What constitutes a high-volume hospital for pancreatic resection? Abstract only. Presented at the Association for Academic Surgeons, February, 2007.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sohn TA, Yeo CJ, Lillemoe KD, et al. Resected adenocarcinoma of the pancreas—616 patients: Results, outcomes, and prognostic indicators. J Gastrointest Surg 2000;4:567–579.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cameron JL, Riall TS, Coleman J, Belcher KA. 1000 Consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies by a single surgeon. Ann Surg 2006;244:10-15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Sohn TA, Lillemoe KD, Pitt HA, Talamini MA, Hruban RH, Ord SE, Sauter PK, Coleman J, Zahurak ML, Grochow LB, Abrams RA. Six hundred fifty consecutive pancreaticoduodenectomies in the 1990s: Pathology, complications, and outcomes. Ann Surg 1997;226:248–260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yeo CJ, Lillemoe KD, Sauter PK, Coleman J, Sohn TA, Campbell KA, Choti MA, Cameron JL. Does prophylactic octreotide really decrease the rates of pancreatic fistula and other complications following pancreaticoduodenectomy? Ann Surg 2000;232:419–429.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lillemoe KD, Cameron JL, Kim MP, et al. Does fibrin glue sealant decrease the rate of pancreatic fistula after pancreaticoduodenectomy? Results of a prospective randomized trial. J Gastrointest Surg 2004;8:766–772.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Buchler M, Friess H, Klempa I, et al. Role of octreotide in the prevention of postoperative complications following pancreatic resection. Am J Surg 1992;163:125–130.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lange JR, Steinberg SM, Doherty GM, et al. A randomized, prospective trial of postoperative somatostatin analogue in patients with neuroendocrine tumors of the pancreas. Surgery 1992;112:1033–1037.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pederzoli P, Bassi C, Falconi M, et al. Efficacy of octreotide in the prevention of complications of elective pancreatic surgery. Italian Study Group. Br J Surg 1994;81:265–269.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Friess H, Beger HG, Sulkowski U, et al. Randomized controlled multicenter trial of the prevention of complications by octreotide in patients undergoing surgery for chronic pancreatitis. Br J Surg 1995;82;1270–1273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Montorsi M, Zago M, Mosca F, et al. Efficacy of octreotide in the prevention of pancreatic fistula after elective pancreatic resections: A prospective, controlled, randomized trial. Surgery 1995;117:26–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Yeo CJ, Barry MK, Sauter PK, et al. Erythromycin accelerates gastric emptying following pancreaticoduodenectomy: A prospective, randomized placebo-controlled trial. Ann Surg 1993;218:229–238.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Taylor S. Riall
    • 1
  • Karl A. Eschbach
    • 2
  • Courtney M. TownsendJr.
    • 1
  • William H. Nealon
    • 1
  • Jean L. Freeman
    • 2
  • James S. Goodwin
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryUniversity of Texas Medical BranchGalvestonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Internal MedicineThe University of Texas Medical BranchGalvestonUSA

Personalised recommendations