4.6 Article

Ninety-day mortality after resection for lung cancer is nearly double 30-day mortality

期刊

JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY
卷 148, 期 5, 页码 2269-2277

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2014.07.077

关键词

-

资金

  1. Covidien

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate 30-day and 90-day mortality after major pulmonary resection for lung cancer including the relationship to hospital volume. Methods: Major lung resections from 2007 to 2011 were identified in the National Cancer Data Base. Mortality was compared according to annual volume and demographic and clinical covariates using univariate and multivariable analyses, and included information on comorbidity. Statistical significance (P < .05) and 95% confidence intervals were assessed. Results: There were 124,418 major pulmonary resections identified in 1233 facilities. The 30-day mortality rate was 2.8%. The 90-day mortality rate was 5.4%. Hospital volume was significantly associated with 30-day mortality, with a mortality rate of 3.7% for volumes less than 10, and 1.7% for volumes of 90 or more. Other variables significantly associated with 30-day mortality include older age, male sex, higher stage, pneumonectomy, a previous primary cancer, and multiple comorbidities. Similar results were found for 90-day mortality rates. In the multivariate analysis, hospital volume remained significant with adjusted odds ratios of 2.1 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7-2.6) for 30-day mortality and 1.3 (95% CI, 1.1-1.6) for conditional 90-day mortality for the hospitals with the lowest volume (<10) compared with those with the highest volume (>90). Hospitals with a volume less than 30 had an adjusted odds ratio for 30-day mortality of 1.3 (95% CI, 1.2-1.5) compared with those with a volume greater than 30. Conclusions: Mortality at 30 and 90 days and hospital volume should be monitored by institutions performing major pulmonary resection and benchmarked against hospitals performing at least 30 resections per year.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据