Impact of Procedure Volumes and Focused Practice on Short-Term Outcomes of Elective and Urgent Colon Cancer Resection in Italy

<div><p>Background</p><p>The relationship between hospital volumes and short-term patients’ outcomes of colon cancer (CC) surgery is not well established in the literature. Moreover, evidence about short-term outcomes of urgent compared with elective CC procedures is scanty. The aims of this study are 1) to determine whether caseloads and other hospital characteristics are associated with short-term outcomes of CC surgery; 2) to compare the outcomes of urgent and elective CC surgery.</p><p>Methods</p><p>A total of 14,200 patients undergoing CC surgery between 2005 and 2010 in the General Surgery Units (GSUs) of the hospitals of Emilia-Romagna region, Northern Italy, were identified from the hospital discharge records database. The outcomes of interest were 30-day in-hospital mortality, re-intervention and 30-day re-admission. Using multilevel analysis, we analyzed the relationship of GSU volumes and focused practice, defined as the percentage of CC operations over total operations, with the three outcomes.</p><p>Results</p><p>High procedure volumes were associated with a lower risk of 30-day in-hospital mortality, after adjusting for patients’ characteristics [aOR (95% CI) = 0.51 (0.33–0.81)]. Stratified analyses for elective and urgent surgery showed that high volumes were associated with a lower 30-day mortality for elective patients [aOR (95% CI) = 0.35 (0.17–0.71)], but not for urgent patients [aOR (95% CI) = 0.72 (0.42–1.24)]. Focused practice was an independent predictor of re-intervention [aOR (95% CI) = 0.67 (0.47–0.97)] and re-admission [aRR (95% CI) = 0.88 (0.78–0.98)].</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>The present study adds evidence in support of the notion that patients with CC undergoing surgery at high-volume and focused surgical units experience better short-term outcomes.</p></div

Integrating clinical and epidemiological data on allergic diseases across birth cohorts: A harmonization study in the mechanisms of the development of allergy project

International collaborations among birth cohorts to better understand asthma and allergies have increased in the last years. However, differences in definitions and methods preclude direct pooling of original individual participant data. We harmonized data from 14 birth cohorts, with three to 20 follow-ups, from nine European countries, as part of the Mechanisms of the Development of Asthma and Allergies (MeDALL) project. The harmonization process followed six steps: organization of the harmonization panel; identification of variables relevant to MeDALL objectives (candidate variables); proposal of a definition for each candidate variable (reference definition); assessment of the compatibility of each cohort variable to its reference definition (inferential equivalence) and classifications of this inferential equivalence as complete, partial, or impossible; workshop to agree on the reference definitions and classifications of inferential equivalence; and data preparation and delivery through a knowledge management portal. We agreed on 137 reference definitions. The inferential equivalence of 3,551 cohort variables to their corresponding reference definition was classified as complete, partial and impossible for 70%, 15% and 15% of the variables, respectively. A harmonized database was delivered. In birth cohorts of asthma and allergies, the harmonization of data for pooled analyses is feasible and may achieve high inferential comparability. The MeDALL harmonization approach can be used in other collaborative projects