Selective vs Routine Cholangiography Across a Health Care Enterprise.

IF 15.7 1区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Abby Gross, Sayf Al-Deen Said, Chase J Wehrle, Hanna Hong, Joseph Quick, Sarah Larson, Mir Shanaz Hossain, Samer Naffouje, R Matthew Walsh, Toms Augustin
{"title":"Selective vs Routine Cholangiography Across a Health Care Enterprise.","authors":"Abby Gross, Sayf Al-Deen Said, Chase J Wehrle, Hanna Hong, Joseph Quick, Sarah Larson, Mir Shanaz Hossain, Samer Naffouje, R Matthew Walsh, Toms Augustin","doi":"10.1001/jamasurg.2024.5216","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>There is sparse literature on whether routine cholangiography (RC) vs selective cholangiography (SC) during cholecystectomy is associated with improved perioperative outcomes, regardless of whether an intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) is performed.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare perioperative outcomes of cholecystectomy between surgeons who routinely vs selectively perform IOC.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 2015 through June 2023 and took place within the Cleveland Clinic Enterprise, which includes 18 hospitals and 9 ambulatory surgery centers in 2 states (Ohio and Florida). Participants included adult patients who underwent cholecystectomy for benign biliary disease. Data analysis was conducted between July 2023 and August 2024.</p><p><strong>Exposure: </strong>Routine cholangiography, defined as more than 70% of cholecystectomies performed with IOC per surgeon over the study period.</p><p><strong>Main outcome(s) and measure(s): </strong>The primary outcome was major bile duct injury (BDI). Hierarchical mixed-effects models with patients nested in hospitals adjusted for individual- and surgeon-level characteristics were used to assess the odds of major BDI and secondary outcomes (minor BDI, operative duration, and perioperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP]).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 134 surgeons performed 28 212 cholecystectomies with 10 244 in the RC cohort (mean age, 52.71 [SD, 17.78] years; 7102 female participants [69.33%]) and 17 968 in the SC cohort (mean age, 52.33 [SD, 17.72] years; 12 135 female participants [67.54%]). Overall, 26 major BDIs (0.09%) and 105 minor BDIs (0.34%) were identified. Controlling for patient and surgeon characteristics nested in hospitals, RC was associated with decreased odds of major BDI (odds ratio [OR], 0.16; 95% CI, 0.15-0.18) and minor BDI (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89) compared with SC. Major BDIs were recognized intraoperatively more often in the RC cohort than the SC cohort (76.9% vs 23.0%; difference, 53.8%; 95% CI, 15.9%-80.2%). Lastly, RC was not significantly associated with increased perioperative ERCP utilization (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90-1.14) or negative ERCP rate (RC, 27 of 844 [3.2%] vs SC, 57 of 1570 [3.6%]; difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -1.9% to 1.0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this study, RC was associated with decreased odds of major and minor BDI, as well as increased intraoperative recognition of major BDI when it occurred. RC could be considered as a health systems strategy to minimize BDI, acknowledging the overall low prevalence but high morbidity from these injuries.</p>","PeriodicalId":14690,"journal":{"name":"JAMA surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":15.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2024.5216","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: There is sparse literature on whether routine cholangiography (RC) vs selective cholangiography (SC) during cholecystectomy is associated with improved perioperative outcomes, regardless of whether an intraoperative cholangiogram (IOC) is performed.

Objective: To compare perioperative outcomes of cholecystectomy between surgeons who routinely vs selectively perform IOC.

Design, setting, and participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 2015 through June 2023 and took place within the Cleveland Clinic Enterprise, which includes 18 hospitals and 9 ambulatory surgery centers in 2 states (Ohio and Florida). Participants included adult patients who underwent cholecystectomy for benign biliary disease. Data analysis was conducted between July 2023 and August 2024.

Exposure: Routine cholangiography, defined as more than 70% of cholecystectomies performed with IOC per surgeon over the study period.

Main outcome(s) and measure(s): The primary outcome was major bile duct injury (BDI). Hierarchical mixed-effects models with patients nested in hospitals adjusted for individual- and surgeon-level characteristics were used to assess the odds of major BDI and secondary outcomes (minor BDI, operative duration, and perioperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP]).

Results: A total of 134 surgeons performed 28 212 cholecystectomies with 10 244 in the RC cohort (mean age, 52.71 [SD, 17.78] years; 7102 female participants [69.33%]) and 17 968 in the SC cohort (mean age, 52.33 [SD, 17.72] years; 12 135 female participants [67.54%]). Overall, 26 major BDIs (0.09%) and 105 minor BDIs (0.34%) were identified. Controlling for patient and surgeon characteristics nested in hospitals, RC was associated with decreased odds of major BDI (odds ratio [OR], 0.16; 95% CI, 0.15-0.18) and minor BDI (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.77-0.89) compared with SC. Major BDIs were recognized intraoperatively more often in the RC cohort than the SC cohort (76.9% vs 23.0%; difference, 53.8%; 95% CI, 15.9%-80.2%). Lastly, RC was not significantly associated with increased perioperative ERCP utilization (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90-1.14) or negative ERCP rate (RC, 27 of 844 [3.2%] vs SC, 57 of 1570 [3.6%]; difference, -0.3%; 95% CI, -1.9% to 1.0%).

Conclusions and relevance: In this study, RC was associated with decreased odds of major and minor BDI, as well as increased intraoperative recognition of major BDI when it occurred. RC could be considered as a health systems strategy to minimize BDI, acknowledging the overall low prevalence but high morbidity from these injuries.

在医疗保健企业中选择性与常规胆道造影。
重要性:关于胆囊切除术中常规胆管造影(RC)与选择性胆管造影(SC)是否与围手术期预后改善相关的文献很少,无论是否进行术中胆管造影(IOC)。目的:比较常规与选择性胆囊切除术围手术期疗效。设计、环境和参与者:这项回顾性队列研究于2015年1月至2023年6月在克利夫兰企业诊所进行,其中包括2个州(俄亥俄州和佛罗里达州)的18家医院和9家门诊手术中心。参与者包括因良性胆道疾病接受胆囊切除术的成年患者。数据分析时间为2023年7月至2024年8月。暴露:常规胆道造影,定义为在研究期间,每位外科医生使用IOC进行的胆囊切除术超过70%。主要结局和措施:主要结局为胆管严重损伤(BDI)。采用分层混合效应模型,对住院患者进行个体和外科水平特征调整,以评估主要BDI和次要结局(轻微BDI、手术时间和围手术期内窥镜逆行胆管造影[ERCP])的几率。结果:在RC队列中,共有134名外科医生进行了28例 212例胆囊切除术,其中10例 244例(平均年龄52.71 [SD, 17.78]岁;女性7102例[69.33%]),SC队列17例 968例(平均年龄52.33 [SD, 17.72]岁;12 135名女性参与者[67.54%])。共发现重度bdi 26例(0.09%),轻度bdi 105例(0.34%)。控制住院患者和外科医生的特征,RC与重度BDI的发生率降低相关(比值比[OR], 0.16;95% CI, 0.15-0.18)和小BDI (OR, 0.83;95% CI, 0.77-0.89)与SC相比,RC组术中发现严重bdi的频率高于SC组(76.9% vs 23.0%;差异,53.8%;95% ci, 15.9%-80.2%)。最后,RC与围手术期ERCP使用率的增加无显著相关(OR, 1.01;95% CI, 0.90-1.14)或ERCP阴性率(RC, 844例中的27例[3.2%]vs SC, 1570例中的57例[3.6%];差异,-0.3%;95% CI, -1.9%至1.0%)。结论和相关性:在本研究中,RC与大BDI和小BDI发生率降低以及术中对大BDI的识别增加相关。RC可被视为一项卫生系统战略,以尽量减少BDI,承认这些伤害的总体患病率低,但发病率高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JAMA surgery
JAMA surgery SURGERY-
CiteScore
20.80
自引率
3.60%
发文量
400
期刊介绍: JAMA Surgery, an international peer-reviewed journal established in 1920, is the official publication of the Association of VA Surgeons, the Pacific Coast Surgical Association, and the Surgical Outcomes Club.It is a proud member of the JAMA Network, a consortium of peer-reviewed general medical and specialty publications.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信