4.5 Article

Hospital variability of postoperative sepsis and sepsis-related mortality after elective coronary artery bypass grafting surgery

Journal

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
Volume 47, Issue -, Pages 232-237

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2018.07.018

Keywords

Postoperative sepsis; Hospital mortality; Readmission; Coronary artery bypass grafting

Funding

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australia [1020660, 1009916]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Hospital variability of postoperative sepsis and sepsis-related mortality after elective CABG surgery was not known in Australia. Material and methods: Population-based analysis of all elective patients who underwent CABG surgery in public and private hospitals between 2007 and 2014 using linked data from the state-wide Admitted Patient Data Collection and the NSW Registry of Births, Deaths, and Marriages.. Results: We identified 18,928 (9464 pairs) matched patients who had elective CABG surgery in public hospitals (n = 9) and private hospitals (n = 13) during the study period. When compared to public hospital patients, private hospital patients had a significantly lower rate of post-CABG sepsis (13.3 vs 20.4 per 1000 admissions, P < 0.001; treatment effects: -7.1, 95%CI: -11.1 to -3.3), a lower in-hospital mortality rate (6.1 vs 9.9 per 1000 admissions, P = 0.006; treatment effects: -3.8, 95%CI: -6.5 to -1.1), and a lower rate of 30-day readmission (11.9% vs 13.9%, P < 0.001; treatment effects: -2.0%, 95%CI: -3.1% to -1.0%). In addition, for both public and private hospital groups, there were significant differences for all outcomes when comparing the worst and best performance quintile hospitals. Conclusions: Hospital variability of postoperative sepsis, in-hospital mortality and readmission after elective CABG existed between and within public and private hospitals. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All tights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available