File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Impact of Anaesthetist Volume on Radical Cystectomy Outcomes

TitleImpact of Anaesthetist Volume on Radical Cystectomy Outcomes
Authors
KeywordsBladder cancer
Enhanced recovery after surgery
Radical cystectomy
Urothelial cancer
Issue Date2021
Citation
European Urology Focus, 2021, v. 7, n. 1, p. 117-123 How to Cite?
AbstractBackground: Radical cystectomy (RC) is a gold standard treatment for aggressive bladder cancer. Higher surgical volumes through centralisation are associated with improved RC outcomes. The impact of anaesthetist experience and RC volume on outcomes is less clear. Objective: We sought to examine RC outcomes stratified by anaesthetist volume using a contemporary homogenous series. Design, setting, and participants: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected, single-surgeon database of RC patients over a 10-yr period. Intervention: Four hundred and fifty-three consecutive patients underwent RC, including 430 (95%) with anaesthetist annotation. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Anaesthetists were stratified into low- (<10 cases) and high-volume (≥10 cases) classes. Primary outcomes were blood loss, transfusion rates, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative mortality. Results and limitations: In total, 63 anaesthetists were included for analysis (median two RCs per anaesthetist). Of 63 anaesthetists, 56 (88.9%) and seven (11.1%) were classified, respectively, into low and high volume, and these provided cover for 110 (25.6%) and 320 (74.4%) patients, respectively. When comparing high- versus low-volume anaesthetists, there were shorter LOS (median [interquartile range {IQR}]: 10 [6–14] vs 12 [7–19] d, p = 0.008), lower blood loss (median [IQR]: 600 [384–1000] vs 800 [500–1275] ml, p<0.001), and lower transfusion rate (23/320, 7.2% vs 22/110, 20%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in disease-specific mortality, overall mortality, or readmission rates. In multivariable analysis, a high anaesthetist volume was independently associated with transfusion rate (odds ratio 0.24 [0.07–0.83], p = 0.02). Conclusions: Higher-volume anaesthetists have lower transfusion rates for RC patients. Whilst LOS and blood loss may also differ with experience, there is no difference in mortality after RC. Patient summary: Radical cystectomy is a major operation. Experienced anaesthetists give fewer blood products to patients undergoing this operation. They may also help reduce blood loss and speed recovery. However, all other recovery measures were similar.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/328757
ISI Accession Number ID

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorJubber, Ibrahim-
dc.contributor.authorPang, Karl H.-
dc.contributor.authorGroves, Ruth-
dc.contributor.authorReed, Oliver-
dc.contributor.authorNoon, Aidan P.-
dc.contributor.authorCatto, James W.F.-
dc.contributor.authorCumberbatch, Marcus G.-
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-22T06:23:40Z-
dc.date.available2023-07-22T06:23:40Z-
dc.date.issued2021-
dc.identifier.citationEuropean Urology Focus, 2021, v. 7, n. 1, p. 117-123-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/328757-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Radical cystectomy (RC) is a gold standard treatment for aggressive bladder cancer. Higher surgical volumes through centralisation are associated with improved RC outcomes. The impact of anaesthetist experience and RC volume on outcomes is less clear. Objective: We sought to examine RC outcomes stratified by anaesthetist volume using a contemporary homogenous series. Design, setting, and participants: A retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected, single-surgeon database of RC patients over a 10-yr period. Intervention: Four hundred and fifty-three consecutive patients underwent RC, including 430 (95%) with anaesthetist annotation. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Anaesthetists were stratified into low- (<10 cases) and high-volume (≥10 cases) classes. Primary outcomes were blood loss, transfusion rates, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative mortality. Results and limitations: In total, 63 anaesthetists were included for analysis (median two RCs per anaesthetist). Of 63 anaesthetists, 56 (88.9%) and seven (11.1%) were classified, respectively, into low and high volume, and these provided cover for 110 (25.6%) and 320 (74.4%) patients, respectively. When comparing high- versus low-volume anaesthetists, there were shorter LOS (median [interquartile range {IQR}]: 10 [6–14] vs 12 [7–19] d, p = 0.008), lower blood loss (median [IQR]: 600 [384–1000] vs 800 [500–1275] ml, p<0.001), and lower transfusion rate (23/320, 7.2% vs 22/110, 20%; p < 0.001). There was no difference in disease-specific mortality, overall mortality, or readmission rates. In multivariable analysis, a high anaesthetist volume was independently associated with transfusion rate (odds ratio 0.24 [0.07–0.83], p = 0.02). Conclusions: Higher-volume anaesthetists have lower transfusion rates for RC patients. Whilst LOS and blood loss may also differ with experience, there is no difference in mortality after RC. Patient summary: Radical cystectomy is a major operation. Experienced anaesthetists give fewer blood products to patients undergoing this operation. They may also help reduce blood loss and speed recovery. However, all other recovery measures were similar.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean Urology Focus-
dc.subjectBladder cancer-
dc.subjectEnhanced recovery after surgery-
dc.subjectRadical cystectomy-
dc.subjectUrothelial cancer-
dc.titleImpact of Anaesthetist Volume on Radical Cystectomy Outcomes-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.euf.2019.04.013-
dc.identifier.pmid31072807-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85065037463-
dc.identifier.volume7-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.spage117-
dc.identifier.epage123-
dc.identifier.eissn2405-4569-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000631866300022-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats