4.2 Article

Hospital readmission rates and risk factors for readmission following cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for peritoneal surface malignancies

出版社

ROYAL COLLEGE SURGEONS EDINBURGH
DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2018.01.001

关键词

CRS/HIPEC; Readmission; Complications

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Cytoreductive surgery and Hyperthermic intra-peritoneal chemotherapy (CRS/ HIPEC) for peritoneal surface malignancies is associated with high morbidity. The increased numbers of patients undergoing CRS/HIPEC in recent years mandates risk analysis and quality assurance. However, only scarce data exist regarding causative parameters for readmission. The aim of this study was to assess readmission rates and risk factors associated with readmission. Methods: A retrospective-cohort study including patients from two high-volume centers who underwent CRS/HIPEC surgery between the years 2007-2016 was performed. Patients' demographics, peri-operative data and readmission rates were recorded. Results: 223 patients were included in the study. The 7 and 30-day readmission rates were 3.5% (n = 8) and 11% (n = 25), respectively. Late readmission rates (up to 90 days) were 11% (n = 25). The most common causes of readmission were surgical related infections (35%), small bowel obstruction (17.5%) and dehydration (14%). Post-operative complications were associated with higher readmission rates (p = 0.0001). PCI score was not associated with higher rates of readmission. Conclusion: Readmissions following CRS/HIPEC occur mainly due to infectious complications and dehydrations. Patients following CRS/HIPEC should be discharged after careful investigation to a community based continuing care with access for IV fluid replacement or antibiotics administration when required. (C) 2018 Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (Scottish charity number SC005317) and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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