Outcomes After Pectus Excavatum Repair: Center Volume Matters

PURPOSE

Pectus excavatum (Pectus) repair may be offered for those with significant cardiopulmonary compromise or severe cosmetic defects. The influence of hospital center volume on postoperative outcomes in children is unknown. This study aimed to investigate the outcomes of children undergoing Pectus repair, stratified by hospital surgical volume.

METHODS

The Nationwide Readmission Database was queried (2016-2020) for patients with Pectus (Q67.6). Patients were stratified into those who received repair at high-volume centers (HVCs; ≥20 repairs annually) versus low-volume centers (LVCs; <20 repairs annually). Demographics and outcomes were analyzed using standard statistical tests.

RESULTS

A total of 9414 patients with Pectus underwent repair during the study period, with 69% treated at HVCs and 31% at LVCs. Patients at LVCs experienced higher rates of complications during index admission, including pneumothorax (23% vs. 15%), chest tube placement (5% vs. 2%), and overall perioperative complications (28% vs. 24%) compared to those treated at HVCs, all p < 0.001. Patients treated at LVCs had higher readmission rates within 30 days (3.8% vs. 2.8% HVCs) and overall readmission (6.8% vs. 4.7% HVCs), both p < 0.010. Among readmitted patients (n = 547), the most frequent complications during readmission for those initially treated at LVCs included pneumothorax/hemothorax (21% vs. 8%), bar dislodgment (21% vs. 12%), and electrolyte disorders (15% vs. 9%) compared to those treated at HVCs.

CONCLUSION

Pediatric Pectus repair performed at high-volume centers was associated with fewer index complications and readmissions compared to lower-volume centers. Patients and surgeons should consider this hospital volume-outcome relationship.

TYPE OF STUDY

Retrospective Comparative.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Impact of center volume on in-hospital mortality in adult patients with out‑of‑hospital cardiac arrest resuscitated using extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a secondary analysis of the SAVE-J II study

Recently, patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) refractory to conventional resuscitation have started undergoing extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR). However, the mortality rate of these patients remains high. This study aimed to clarify whether a center ECPR volume was associated with the survival rates of adult patients with OHCA resuscitated using ECPR. This was a secondary analysis of a retrospective multicenter registry study, the SAVE-J II study, involving 36 participating institutions in Japan. Centers were divided into three groups according to the tertiles of the annual average number of patients undergoing ECPR: high-volume (≥ 21 sessions per year), medium-volume (11-20 sessions per year), or low-volume (< 11 sessions per year). The primary outcome was survival rate at the time of discharge. Patient characteristics and outcomes were compared among the three groups. Moreover, a multivariable-adjusted logistic regression model was applied to study the impact of center ECPR volume. A total of 1740 patients were included in this study. The center ECPR volume was strongly associated with survival rate at the time of discharge; furthermore, survival rate was best in high-volume compared with medium- and low-volume centers (33.4%, 24.1%, and 26.8%, respectively; P = 0.001). After adjusting for patient characteristics, undergoing ECPR at high-volume centers was associated with an increased likelihood of survival compared to middle- (adjusted odds ratio 0.657; P = 0.003) and low-volume centers (adjusted odds ratio 0.983; P = 0.006). The annual number of ECPR sessions was associated with favorable survival rates and lower complication rates of the ECPR procedure.Clinical trial registration: https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000041577 (unique identifier: UMIN000036490).

Travel Time to a High Volume Center Negatively Impacts Timing of Care in Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

Regionalization of rectal cancer surgery may lead to worse disease free survival owing to longer travel time to reach a high volume center yet no study has evaluated this relationship at a single high volume center volume center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective review of rectal cancer patients undergoing surgery from 2009 to 2019 at a single high volume center. Patients were divided into two groups based on travel time. The primary outcome was disease-free survival (DFS). Additional outcomes included treatment within 60 d of diagnosis, completeness of preoperative staging, and evaluation by a colorectal surgeon prior to initiation of treatment.

RESULTS

A lower proportion of patients with long travel time began definitive treatment within 60 d of diagnosis (74.0% versus 84.0%, P= 0.01) or were seen by the treating colorectal surgeon before beginning definitive treatment (74.8% versus 85.4%, P < 0.01). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, patients with long travel time were significantly less likely to begin definitive treatment within 60 d of diagnosis (OR = 0.54; 95% CI = 0.31-0.93) or to be evaluated by a colorectal surgeon prior to initiating treatment (OR = 0.45; 95% CI = 0.25-0.80). There were no significant differences in DFS based on travel time.

CONCLUSIONS

Although patients with long travel times may be vulnerable to delayed, lower quality rectal cancer care, there is no difference in DFS when definitive surgery is performed at a high volume canter. Ongoing research is needed to identify explanations for delays in treatment to ensure all patients receive the highest quality care.