The Volume-Outcome Relationship in Critical Care

International audience

English. OBJECTIVEThe purpose of this study was to systematically review the research on volume and outcome relationships in critical care.METHODSFrom January 1, 2001, to April 30, 2014, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for studies assessing the relationship between admission volume and clinical outcomes in critical illness. Bibliographies were reviewed to identify other articles of interest, and experts were contacted about missing or unpublished studies. Of 127 studies reviewed, 46 met inclusion criteria, covering seven clinical conditions. Two investigators independently reviewed each article using a standardized form to abstract information on key study characteristics and results.RESULTSOverall, 29 of the studies (63%) reported a statistically significant association between higher admission volume and improved outcomes. The magnitude of the association (mortality OR between the lowest vs highest stratum of volume centers), as well as the thresholds used to characterize high volume, varied across clinical conditions. Critically ill patients with cardiovascular (n = 7, OR = 1.49 [1.11-2.00]), respiratory (n = 12, OR = 1.20 [1.04-1.38]), severe sepsis (n = 4, OR = 1.17 [1.03-1.33]), hepato-GI (n = 3, OR = 1.30 [1.08-1.78]), neurologic (n = 3, OR = 1.38 [1.22-1.57]), and postoperative admission diagnoses (n = 3, OR = 2.95 [1.05-8.30]) were more likely to benefit from admission to higher-volume centers compared with lower-volume centers. Studies that controlled for ICU or hospital organizational factors were less likely to find a significant volume-outcome relationship than studies that did not control for these factors.CONCLUSIONSCritically ill patients generally benefit from care in high-volume centers, with more substantial benefits in selected high-risk conditions. This relationship may in part be mediated by specific ICU and hospital organizational factors.Volume-outcome relationships are well established in many surgical conditions and high-risk procedures in health care.1 Under these relationships, higher numbers of procedures are thought to lead to better patient outcomes through the development of procedural skill.2 Such observations lend conceptual support to the development of regionalized systems of surgical care, in which patients are selectively referred to high-volume providers.3 Selective referral has substantially improved the quality of care for patients in need of these planned high-risk procedures, with improved outcomes over time due in large part to concentration of care.2Given the current shortage of ICU physicians and the overall complexity of critical illness, critical care is also an attractive target for regionalization. However, unlike in many surgical conditions, the volume-outcome relationship in critical illness is still incompletely characterized.4 In the absence of a well-defined volume-outcome relationship, regionalization of critical care may increase costs while delaying definitive therapy for extremely sick patients in need of rapid diagnosis and treatment. Moreover, regionalization is only one potential strategy for region-wide organization of critical care.5 Without a greater understanding of the mechanism of the volume-outcome relationship, which may in part be determined by organizational factors that are correlated with volume, we may miss out on opportunities to improve outcomes for small-volume providers without large-scale reorganization of care.The goal of this study was to perform a systematic review of literature to assess the volume-outcome relationship among critically ill adult patients. In addition to providing summary information, we sought to understand organizational factors that may be potential mechanisms for this effect by analyzing the differences between positive and negative studies.