Caseload as a factor for outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage : a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECT: Increasing evidence exists that treatment of complex medical conditions in high-volume centers is found to improve outcome. Patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), a complex disease, probably also benefit from treatment at a high-volume center. The authors aimed to determine, based on published literature, whether a higher hospital caseload is associated with improved outcomes of patients undergoing treatment after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage.

METHODS: The authors identified studies from MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to September 28, 2012, that evaluated outcome in high-volume versus low-volume centers in patients with SAH who were treated by either clipping or endovascular coiling. No language restrictions were set. The compared outcome measure was in-hospital mortality. Mortality in studies was pooled in a random effects meta-analysis. Study quality was reported according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.

RESULTS: Four articles were included in this analysis, representing 36,600 patients. The quality of studies was graded low in 3 and very low in 1. Meta-analysis using a random effects model showed a decrease in hospital mortality (OR 0.77 [95% CI 0.60-0.97]; p = 0.00; I(2) = 91%) in high-volume hospitals treating SAH patients. Sensitivity analysis revealed the relative weight of the 1 low-quality study. Removal of the study with very low quality increased the effect size of the meta-analysis to an OR of 0.68 (95% CI 0.56-0.84; p = 0.00; I(2) = 86%). The definition of hospital volume differed among studies. Cutoffs and dichotomizations were used as well as division in quartiles. In 1 study, low volume was defined as 9 or fewer patients yearly, whereas in another it was defined as fewer than 30 patients yearly. Similarly, 1 study defined high volume as more than 20 patients annually, and another defined it as more than 50 patients a year. For comparability between studies, recalculation was done with dichotomized data if available. Cross et al., 2003 (low volume ≤ 18, high volume ≥ 19) and Johnston, 2000 (low volume ≤ 31, high volume ≥ 32) provided core data for recalculation. The overall results of this analysis revealed an OR of 0.85 (95% CI 0.72-0.99; p = 0.00; I(2) = 87%).

CONCLUSIONS: Despite the shortcomings of this study, the mortality rate was lower in hospitals with a larger caseload. Limitations of the meta-analysis are the not uniform cutoff values and uncertainty about case mix.

Medienart:

E-Artikel

Erscheinungsjahr:

2014

Erschienen:

2014

Enthalten in:

Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:120

Enthalten in:

Journal of neurosurgery - 120(2014), 3 vom: 04. März, Seite 605-11

Sprache:

Englisch

Beteiligte Personen:

Boogaarts, Hieronymus D [VerfasserIn]
van Amerongen, Martinus J [VerfasserIn]
de Vries, Joost [VerfasserIn]
Westert, Gert P [VerfasserIn]
Verbeek, André L M [VerfasserIn]
Grotenhuis, J André [VerfasserIn]
Bartels, Ronald H M A [VerfasserIn]

Links:

Volltext

Themen:

Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Review
Systematic Review

Anmerkungen:

Date Completed 12.05.2014

Date Revised 16.03.2022

published: Print-Electronic

Citation Status MEDLINE

doi:

10.3171/2013.9.JNS13640

funding:

Förderinstitution / Projekttitel:

PPN (Katalog-ID):

NLM23140185X