Index hospital cost of adverse events following thoracic surgery: a systematic review of economic literature.

OBJECTIVES: Adverse events (AEs) following thoracic surgery place considerable strain on healthcare systems. A rigorous evaluation of the economic impact of thoracic surgical AEs remains lacking and is required to understand the value of money of formal quality improvement initiatives. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of all available literature focused on specific cost of postoperative AEs following thoracic surgery. DESIGN: Systematic review of the economic literature was performed, following recommendations from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. DATA SOURCES: An economic search filter developed by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health was applied, and MEDLINE, Embase and The Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included English articles involving adult patients who underwent a thoracic surgical procedure with estimated costs of postoperative complications. Eligible study designs included comparative observational studies, randomised control trials, decision analytic or cost-prediction models, cost analyses, cost or burden of illness studies, economic evaluation studies and systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses of cost analyses and cost of illness studies. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts in the first stage and full-text articles of included studies in the second stage. Disagreements during abstract and full-text screening stages were resolved via discussion until a consensus was reached. Studies were appraised for methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist. RESULTS: 3349 studies were identified: 20 met inclusion criteria. Most were conducted in the USA (12/20), evaluating AE impact on hospital expenditures (18/20). 68 procedure-specific AE mean costs were characterised (USD$). The most commonly described were anastomotic leak (mean:range) (USD$49 278:$6 176-$133 002) and pneumonia ($12 258:$2608-$34 591) following esophagectomy, and prolonged air leak ($2556:$571-$3573), respiratory failure ($19 062:$11 841-$37 812), empyema ($30 189:$23 784-$36 595), pneumonia ($15 362:$2542-$28 183), recurrent laryngeal nerve injury ($16 420:$4224-$28 616) and arrhythmia ($6835:$5833-$8659) following lobectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital costs associated with AEs following thoracic surgery are substantial and varied. Quantifying costs of AEs enable future economic evaluation studies, which could help prioritising value-directed quality improvement to optimally improve outcomes and reduce costs.

Multicentre positive deviance to reduce adverse events and length of stay after pulmonary resection.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative adverse events (AEs) following pulmonary resection enormously impact patient well-being, length of stay (LOS) and healthcare costs. Standardised AE data collection can be used to identify positive outliers demonstrating positive deviance (PD) who may be helpful to inform the best practice. Here, we describe our initial experience of a novel quality improvement process using PD to reduce LOS and AEs. METHODS: AE rates and LOS were collected from four centres (2014-2020) using a common dictionary. Surgeons repeatedly participated in 60 to 90 min seminars consisting of the following process: identify outcome and procedure targeted, review relevant best evidence literature, view all data anonymised by surgeon or centre (if multicentre), choose and reveal identity of best performance PD outliers, who discuss their management principles while all receive self-evaluation reports, followed by collegial discussion to generate consensus recommendations, voted by all. We assessed overall impact on AEs and LOS using aggregate data in a before/after analysis. RESULTS: A total of 131 surgeons (average 12/seminar) participated in 11 PD seminars (8 local and 3 multicentre), yielding 85 consensus recommendation (average 8/seminar). Median LOS following lobectomy decreased from 4.0 to 3.0 days (p=0.04) following local PD seminars and from 4.0 to 3.5 days (p=0.11) following multicentre seminars. Trends for reductions in multiple AE rates were also observed. CONCLUSION: While limited by the longitudinal design, these findings provide preliminary support for this data-driven, collegial and actionable quality improvement process to help standardise and improve patient care, and merits further more rigorous investigation.