RESUMO
Purpose: To assess whether tumor location during thoracic lobectomies affects economic outcomes or air leak complications. Patients and methods: Retrospective, observational study using Premier Healthcare Database. The study included patients aged ≥18 years who underwent elective inpatient thoracic lobectomy for lung cancer between 2012 and 2014 (first qualifying=index admission). Three mutually exclusive tumor location groups were formed: upper lobe, middle lobe, and lower lobe. Primary outcomes were index admission's length of stay (LOS), total hospital costs, and operating room time; in-hospital air leak complications (composite of air leak/pneumothorax) served as an exploratory outcome. Multivariable models were used to examine the association between tumor location and the study outcomes, accounting for covariates and hospital-level clustering. Results: 8,750 thoracic lobectomies were identified: upper lobe (n=5,284), middle lobe (n=512), and lower lobe (n=2,954). Compared with the upper lobe, the middle and lower lobe groups had statistically significant (p<0.05): shorter adjusted LOS (7.0 days upper vs 5.8 days middle, 6.6 days lower), lower adjusted mean total hospital costs ($26,177 upper vs $23,109 middle, $24,557 lower), and lower adjusted odds of air leak complications (odds ratio middle vs upper=0.81, 95% CI=0.74-0.89; odds ratio lower vs upper=0.60, 95% CI=0.46-0.78). Findings were similar but varied in statistical significance when stratified by open and video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery approach. Conclusion: Among patients undergoing elective thoracic lobectomy for lung cancer in real-world clinical practice, upper lobe tumors were significantly associated with increased in-hospital resource use and air leak complications as compared with lower or middle lobe tumors.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) lung resections are complex procedures with a critical role played by endoscopic staplers in the transection of vessels, bronchi, and lung tissue. This retrospective, observational study compared hospital resource use, costs, and complications of VATS lobectomy procedures for whom powered versus manual endoscopic surgical staplers were used. METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years of age undergoing elective VATS lobectomy during an inpatient admission from January 1, 2012 to September 30, 2016 were identified from the Premier Healthcare Database (first admission = index admission). Use of either powered or manual endoscopic staplers during the index admission was identified from hospital administrative records. Multivariable regression analyses adjusting for patient, hospital, and provider characteristics and hospital-level clustering were carried out to compare the following outcomes between the powered and manual stapler groups: hospital length of stay (LOS), operating room time (ORT), hospital costs, complications (bleeding and/or transfusions, air leak complications, pneumonia, and infection), discharge status, and 30-, 60-, and 90-day all-cause readmissions. RESULTS: The powered and manual stapler groups comprised 659 patients (mean age 66.1 years; 53.6% female) and 3100 patients (mean age 66.7 years; 54.8% female), respectively. In the multivariable analyses, the powered stapler group had shorter LOS (4.9 vs. 5.9 days, P < 0.001), lower total hospital costs ($23,841 vs. $26,052, P = 0.009), and lower rates of combined hemostasis complications (bleeding and/or transfusions; 8.5% vs. 16.0%, P < 0.001) and transfusions (5.4% vs. 10.9%, P = 0.002), compared with the manual stapler group. Other outcomes did not differ significantly between the study groups. Similar trends were observed in subanalyses comparing devices across predominant manufacturers in each group, and in subanalyses of patients with comorbid chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. CONCLUSION: In this analysis of VATS lobectomy procedures, powered staplers were associated with significant benefits with respect to selected types of hospital resource use, costs, and clinical outcomes when compared with manual staplers. FUNDING: Johnson & Johnson.
