Value of Ambulatory Modified Radical Mastectomy.
Ambulatory mastectomy
Breast cancer
Breast cancer surgery
Modified radical mastectomy
Outpatient mastectomy
Outpatient surgery
Journal
Annals of surgical oncology
ISSN: 1534-4681
Titre abrégé: Ann Surg Oncol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9420840
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2023
Aug 2023
Historique:
received:
17
01
2023
accepted:
13
03
2023
medline:
7
7
2023
pubmed:
11
5
2023
entrez:
11
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Modified radical mastectomy (MRM) still is largely performed in inpatient settings. This study sought to determine the value (expenditures and complications) of ambulatory MRM. Health Care Utilization Project (HCUP) state databases from 2016 were queried for patients who underwent MRM. The study examined rates of 30-day readmission for surgical-site infection (SSI) or hematoma, charges by index care setting, and predictors of 30-day readmission. Overall, 8090 patients underwent MRM: 5113 (63 %) inpatient and 2977 (37 %) ambulatory patients. Compared with the patients who underwent inpatient MRM, those who underwent ambulatory MRM were older (61 vs. 59 years), more often white (66 % vs. 57 %), in the lowest income quartile (28 % vs. 21 %), insured by Medicare (43 % vs. 33 %) and residents in a small metro area (6 % vs. 4 %) (all p < 0.01). Of the 5113 patients treated as inpatients, 126 (2.5 %) were readmitted, whereas 50 (1.7 %) of the ambulatory patients were readmitted (p = 0.02). The adjusted charge for inpatient MRM without readmission was $113,878 (range, $107,355-120,402) compared with $94,463 (range, $86,021-102,907) for ambulatory MRM, and the charge for inpatient MRM requiring readmission was $159,355 (range, $147,142-171,568) compared with $139,940 (range, $125,808-154,073) for ambulatory MRM (all p < 0.01). This difference remained significant after adjustment for hospital length of stay. Adjusted logistic regression showed that the ambulatory setting was protective for readmission (odds ratio, 0.49; 95 % confidence interval, 0.35-0.70; p < 0.01). The analyses suggest that ambulatory MRM is both safe and less expensive. The findings advocate that MRM, a last holdout of inpatient care within breast surgical oncology, can be transitioned to the ambulatory setting for appropriate patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Modified radical mastectomy (MRM) still is largely performed in inpatient settings. This study sought to determine the value (expenditures and complications) of ambulatory MRM.
METHODS
METHODS
Health Care Utilization Project (HCUP) state databases from 2016 were queried for patients who underwent MRM. The study examined rates of 30-day readmission for surgical-site infection (SSI) or hematoma, charges by index care setting, and predictors of 30-day readmission.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall, 8090 patients underwent MRM: 5113 (63 %) inpatient and 2977 (37 %) ambulatory patients. Compared with the patients who underwent inpatient MRM, those who underwent ambulatory MRM were older (61 vs. 59 years), more often white (66 % vs. 57 %), in the lowest income quartile (28 % vs. 21 %), insured by Medicare (43 % vs. 33 %) and residents in a small metro area (6 % vs. 4 %) (all p < 0.01). Of the 5113 patients treated as inpatients, 126 (2.5 %) were readmitted, whereas 50 (1.7 %) of the ambulatory patients were readmitted (p = 0.02). The adjusted charge for inpatient MRM without readmission was $113,878 (range, $107,355-120,402) compared with $94,463 (range, $86,021-102,907) for ambulatory MRM, and the charge for inpatient MRM requiring readmission was $159,355 (range, $147,142-171,568) compared with $139,940 (range, $125,808-154,073) for ambulatory MRM (all p < 0.01). This difference remained significant after adjustment for hospital length of stay. Adjusted logistic regression showed that the ambulatory setting was protective for readmission (odds ratio, 0.49; 95 % confidence interval, 0.35-0.70; p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The analyses suggest that ambulatory MRM is both safe and less expensive. The findings advocate that MRM, a last holdout of inpatient care within breast surgical oncology, can be transitioned to the ambulatory setting for appropriate patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37166742
doi: 10.1245/s10434-023-13588-z
pii: 10.1245/s10434-023-13588-z
pmc: PMC10173905
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
4637-4643Informations de copyright
© 2023. Society of Surgical Oncology.
Références
Fox JP, Vashi AA, Ross JS, Gross CP. Hospital-based, acute care after ambulatory surgery center discharge. Surgery. 2014;155:743–53.
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2013.12.008
pubmed: 24787100
Grant MC, Pio Roda CM, Canner JK, et al. The impact of anesthesia-influenced process measure compliance on length of stay: results from an enhanced recovery after surgery for colorectal surgery cohort. Anesth Analg. 2019;128:68–74.
doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000003458
pubmed: 29782405
Ljungqvist O, Scott M, Fearon KC. Enhanced recovery after surgery: a review. JAMA Surg. 2017;152:292–8.
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.4952
pubmed: 28097305
Bryan AF, Levine DM, Tsai TC. Home hospital for surgery. JAMA Surg. 2021;156:679–80.
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2021.0597
pubmed: 33909002
Vuong B, Dusendang JR, Chang SB, et al. Outpatient mastectomy: factors influencing patient selection and predictors of return to care. J Am Coll Surg. 2021;232:35–44.
doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.09.015
pubmed: 33022403
Offodile AC II, Gu C, Boukovalas S, et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways in breast reconstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;173:65–77.
doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4991-8
pubmed: 30306426
Specht MC, Kelly BN, Tomczyk E, et al. One-year experience of same-day mastectomy and breast reconstruction protocol. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29:5711–9.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-11859-9
pubmed: 35543905
pmcid: 9092933
Vuong B, Graff-Baker AN, Yanagisawa M, et al. Implementation of a post-mastectomy home recovery program in a large, integrated health care delivery system. Ann Surg Oncol. 2019;26:3178–84.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-019-07551-0
pubmed: 31396779
Simoni M, Laurent FX, Evrard S, Bruneau L, Allio N, Randet M. Patient satisfaction regarding outpatient mastectomy in Saint-Nazaire hospital center. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2017;46:323–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.jogoh.2017.02.011
pubmed: 28408310
Teisberg E, Wallace S, O’Hara S. Defining and implementing value-based health care: a strategic framework. Acad Med. 2020;95:682–5.
doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000003122
pubmed: 31833857
Castillo-Angeles M, Weiss A. Outpatient mastectomy: no longer drive-through, but driving into the mainstream? J Am Coll Surg. 2021;232:44–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2020.10.003
pubmed: 33308766
(HCUP) HcaUP. HCUP State Inpatient Databases (SID). In: Quality AfHRa, ed. Rockville, MD2005–2009.
(HCUP) HcaUP. HCUP State Ambulatory Surgery and Services Databases (SASD). In: Quality AfHRa, ed. Rockville, MD2007–2009.
(HCUP) HcaUP. HCUP State Emergency Department Databases (SEDD). In: Quality AfHRa, ed. Rockville, MD2009.
Sibia US, Klune JR, Turcotte JJ, Holton LH III, Riker AI. Hospital-based same-day compared to overnight-stay mastectomy: an American College of Surgeons national surgical quality improvement program analysis. Ochsner J. 2022;22:139–45.
doi: 10.31486/toj.21.0103
pubmed: 35756587
pmcid: 9196968
Cordeiro E, Jackson T, Cil T. Same-day major breast cancer surgery is safe: an analysis of short-term outcomes using NSQIP data. Ann Surg Oncol. 2016;23:2480–6.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-016-5128-0
pubmed: 26920387
Jogerst K, Thomas O, Kosiorek HE, et al. Same-day discharge after mastectomy: breast cancer surgery in the era of ERAS(®). Ann Surg Oncol. 2020;27:3436–45.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-020-08386-w
pubmed: 32221736
Marxen T, Shauly O, Losken A. The safety of same-day discharge after immediate alloplastic breast reconstruction: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2022;10:e4448.
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000004448
pubmed: 35924002
pmcid: 9298472
Oxley PJ, McNeely C, Janzen R, et al. Successful same-day discharge after immediate post-mastectomy alloplastic breast reconstruction: a single tertiary centre retrospective audit. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2020;73:1068–74.
doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2020.01.018
pubmed: 32113960
Hechenbleikner EM, Zheng C, Lawrence S, et al. Do hospital factors impact readmissions and mortality after colorectal resections at minority-serving hospitals? Surgery. 2017;161:846–54.
doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2016.08.041
pubmed: 28029380
Crandall M. Access and care disparities in ambulatory surgery centers. JAMA Surg. 2020;155:1131.
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.3367
pubmed: 32902592
Janeway MG, Sanchez SE, Chen Q, et al. Association of race, health insurance status, and household income with location and outcomes of ambulatory surgery among adult patients in 2 US states. JAMA Surg. 2020;155:1123–31.
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.3318
pubmed: 32902630
pmcid: 7489412
Amen TB, Varady NH, Wright-Chisem J, Bovonratwet P, Parks ML, Ast MP. Emerging racial disparities in outpatient utilization of total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2022;37(11):2116–21.
doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.05.008
pubmed: 35537609
Friedlander DF, Krimphove MJ, Cole AP, et al. Where is the value in ambulatory versus inpatient surgery? Ann Surg. 2021;273:909–16.
doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003578
pubmed: 31460878
Gibon E, Parvataneni HK, Prieto HA, Photos LL, Stone WZ, Gray CF. Outpatient total knee arthroplasty: is it economically feasible in the hospital setting? Arthroplasty Today. 2020;6:231–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2020.02.004
pubmed: 32577469
pmcid: 7303491
Friedlander DF, Krimphove MJ, Cole AP, et al. Care setting as a modifiable predictor of perioperative cost and outcomes following elective urinary stone surgery. Urol Pract. 2020;7:259–65.
doi: 10.1097/UPJ.0000000000000107
pubmed: 37317453
Pendharkar AV, Shahin MN, Ho AL, et al. Outpatient spine surgery: defining the outcomes, value, and barriers to implementation. Neurosurg Focus. 2018;44:E11.
doi: 10.3171/2018.2.FOCUS17790
pubmed: 29712520
Ode GE, Odum S, Connor PM, Hamid N. Ambulatory versus inpatient shoulder arthroplasty: a population-based analysis of trends, outcomes, and charges. JSES Int. 2020;4:127–32.
doi: 10.1016/j.jses.2019.10.001
pubmed: 32195474
pmcid: 7075753
Qin C, Curtis DM, Reider B, Shi LL, Lee MJ, Athiviraham A. Orthopaedic shoulder surgery in the ambulatory surgical center: safety and outcomes. Arthroscopy. 2019;35:2545–50.
doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2019.03.031
pubmed: 31421959
Gupta V, Parikh R, Nguyen L, et al. Is office-based surgery safe? Comparing outcomes of 183,914 aesthetic surgical procedures across different types of accredited facilities. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37:226–35.
doi: 10.1093/asj/sjw138
pubmed: 27553613
Hollenbeck BK, Dunn RL, Suskind AM, Strope SA, Zhang Y, Hollingsworth JM. Ambulatory surgery centers and their intended effects on outpatient surgery. Health Serv Res. 2015;50:1491–507.
doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.12278
pubmed: 25645136
pmcid: 4600358
Hammond JB, Thomas O, Jogerst K, et al. Same-day discharge is safe and effective after implant-based breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2021;87:144–9.
doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000002667
pubmed: 33470624
Hemal K, Boyd CJ, Bekisz JM, Salibian AA, Choi M, Karp NS. Breast reconstruction during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2021;9:e3852.
doi: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000003852
pubmed: 34584831
pmcid: 8460228
Faulkner HR, Coopey SB, Liao EC, Specht M, Smith BL, Colwell AS. The safety of performing breast reconstruction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Breast Cancer. 2022;29:242–6.
doi: 10.1007/s12282-021-01304-2
pubmed: 34652688
Ludwig K, Wexelman B, Chen S, et al. Home recovery after mastectomy review of literature and strategies for implementation. American society of breast surgeons working group. Ann Surg Oncol. 2022;29:5799–808.
doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-11799-4
pubmed: 35503389