National Analysis of Unplanned Readmissions After Thoracoscopic Versus Open Lung Cancer Resection

被引:24
|
作者
Bhagat, Rohun
Bronsert, Michael R.
Ward, Austin N.
Martin, Jeremiah
Juarez-Colunga, Elizabeth
Glebova, Natalia O.
Henderson, William G.
Fullerton, David
Weyant, Michael J.
Mitchell, John D.
Meguid, Robert A.
机构
[1] Univ Colorado, Sch Med, Surg Outcomes & Appl Res Program SOAR, Aurora, CO 80045 USA
[2] Univ Colorado, Sch Med, Dept Surg, Aurora, CO 80045 USA
[3] Univ Colorado, Sch Med, Adult & Child Ctr Hlth Outcomes Res & Delivery Sc, Aurora, CO 80045 USA
[4] Univ Kentucky, Sch Med, Dept Surg, Lexington, KY 40536 USA
[5] Southern Ohio Med Ctr, Dept Cardiothorac Surg, Portsmouth, OH USA
[6] Colorado Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Biostat & Informat, Aurora, CO USA
来源
ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY | 2017年 / 104卷 / 06期
关键词
QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM; SURGICAL SITE INFECTIONS; LENGTH-OF-STAY; HOSPITAL READMISSION; PULMONARY LOBECTOMY; VASCULAR-SURGERY; AMERICAN-COLLEGE; RISK-FACTORS; THORACOTOMY; MORTALITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.08.047
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background. Hospital readmissions are viewed as a mark of inferior health care quality and are penalized. Unplanned postoperative readmission reason and timing after lung resection are not well understood. We examine related, unplanned readmissions after thoracoscopic versus open anatomic lung resections to identify opportunities to improve patient care. Methods. We analyzed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) data set, 2012 to 2015, characterizing 30-day related, unplanned postoperative readmissions after anatomic lung resections for primary lung cancer. Risk-adjusted comparison of readmission after thoracoscopic and open resection was performed using propensity matching. Results. Patients (n = 9,510) underwent anatomic lung resections; 4,935 (51.9%) were thoracoscopic resections and 4,575 (48.1%) were open resections. Of the thoracoscopic patients, 10.9% experienced one or more complications, versus 19.4% of patients with open resection (p < 0.0001). Of the thoracoscopic patients 5.5% experienced related, unplanned readmissions versus 7.2% of the patients with open resection (p < 0.001). 24.8% of complications after thoracoscopic approach occurred after discharge, versus 15.5% after open approach (p < 0.0001). Timing of unplanned readmission was similar for both groups. The propensity-matched odds ratio of risk of readmission after thoracoscopic versus open resection was 1.16 (95% confidence interval, 0.949 to 1.411, p = 0.15). Conclusions. Open anatomic lung resections for primary lung cancer had nearly twice the complication rate but only a slightly higher readmission rate than thoracoscopic resection. More complications occurred after discharge after thoracoscopic than open resections. Most readmissions occurred within 2 weeks after both thoracoscopic and open resections. Risk-adjusted comparison identified no statistically significant difference in risk of related, unplanned readmission after thoracoscopic versus open resections. Future studies should focus on identification of processes of care to decrease complications and unplanned readmissions after lung cancer resection. (C) 2017 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
引用
收藏
页码:1782 / 1790
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Meta-Analysis of Unplanned Readmissions Following Thoracoscopic Versus Open Lung Cancer Resection
    Kowalewski, J.
    Dancewicz, M.
    Kowalewski, M.
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC ONCOLOGY, 2018, 13 (10) : S642 - S642
  • [2] Perioperative Outcomes and 5-year Survival After Open versus Thoracoscopic Sleeve Resection for Lung Cancer
    Mayne, Nicholas R.
    Darling, Alice J.
    Raman, Vignesh
    Balderson, Scott
    Berry, Mark F.
    Harpole Jr, David H.
    D'Amico, Thomas A.
    Yang, Chi-Fu Jeffrey
    SEMINARS IN THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 2021, 33 (02) : 522 - 530
  • [3] Short-Term Readmissions After Open, Thoracoscopic, and Robotic Lobectomy for Lung Cancer Based on the Nationwide Readmissions Database
    Bailey, Katherine L.
    Merchant, Natalie
    Seo, Young-Ji
    Elashoff, David
    Benharash, Peyman
    Yanagawa, Jane
    WORLD JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2019, 43 (05) : 1377 - 1384
  • [4] Short-Term Readmissions After Open, Thoracoscopic, and Robotic Lobectomy for Lung Cancer Based on the Nationwide Readmissions Database
    Katherine L. Bailey
    Natalie Merchant
    Young-Ji Seo
    David Elashoff
    Peyman Benharash
    Jane Yanagawa
    World Journal of Surgery, 2019, 43 : 1377 - 1384
  • [5] Open versus Thoracoscopic RFA-Assisted Lung Resection
    Poupalou, Anna
    Kontos, Michael
    Felekouras, Evangelos
    Papalois, Apostolos
    Kavantzas, Nikolaos
    Agrogiannis, George
    Yagoubi, Fatima
    Tomos, Periklis
    JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE SURGERY, 2017, 30 (06) : 403 - 409
  • [6] A National Study of Nodal Upstaging After Thoracoscopic Versus Open Lobectomy for Clinical Stage I Lung Cancer
    Licht, Peter B.
    Jorgensen, Ole Dan
    Ladegaard, Lars
    Jakobsen, Erik
    ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY, 2013, 96 (03): : 943 - 950
  • [7] Thoracoscopic versus open resection for congenital cystic adenomatoid malformations of the lung
    Vu, Lan T.
    Farmer, Diana L.
    Nobuhara, Kerilyn K.
    Miniati, Doug
    Lee, Hanmin
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC SURGERY, 2008, 43 (01) : 35 - 39
  • [8] National evaluation of risk factors for unplanned readmission after lung resection
    Pons, Aina
    Guirao, Angela
    Fibla, Juan J.
    Carvajal, Carlos
    Embun, Raul
    Sanchez, David
    Hernandez, Jorge
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY, 2022, 61 (06) : 1251 - 1257
  • [9] Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery versus open resection of lung metastases from colorectal cancer
    Hou, Zhiliang
    Zhang, Haoliang
    Gui, Linyan
    Wang, Wenbo
    Zhao, Song
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2015, 8 (08): : 13571 - 13577
  • [10] TUMOR DISSEMINATION AFTER THORACOSCOPIC RESECTION FOR LUNG-CANCER
    BUHR, J
    HURTGEN, M
    KELM, C
    SCHWEMMLE, K
    JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY, 1995, 110 (03): : 855 - 856