Understanding the Influence of Hospital Volume on Inpatient Outcomes Following Hospitalization for Status Epilepticus

• Published in: Neurocritical care Vol. 38; no. 1; pp. 26 - 34
• Main Authors: Syed, Maryam J., Zutshi, Deepti, Khawaja, Ayaz, Basha, Maysaa M., Marawar, Rohit
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York Springer US 01-02-2023; Springer Nature B.V
• Subjects: Critical Care Medicine; Databases, Factual; Demographics; Diabetes; Emergency medical care; Family income; Hospitalization; Hospitals; Hospitals, High-Volume; Humans; Inpatients; Intensive; Internal Medicine; Length of Stay; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Mortality; Neurology; Neurosurgery; Original Work; Patients; Regression analysis; Statistical analysis; Status Epilepticus - epidemiology; Status Epilepticus - therapy; Thrombosis; United States > US; Hospital volume; Inpatient outcomes; Status epilepticus
• ISSN: 1541-6933; 1556-0961
• DOI: 10.1007/s12028-022-01656-3

Background
Prior studies show hospital admission volume to be associated with poor outcomes following elective procedures and inpatient medical hospitalizations. However, it is unknown whether hospital volume impacts Inpatient outcomes for status epilepticus (SE) hospitalizations. In this study, we aimed to assess the impact of hospital volume on the outcome of patients with SE and related inpatient medical complications.
Methods
The 2005 to 2013 National Inpatient Sample database was queried using International Classification of Diseases 9th Edition diagnosis code 345.3 to identify patients undergoing acute hospitalization for SE. The National Inpatient Sample hospital identifier was used as a unique facility identifier to calculate the average volume of patients with SE seen in a year. The study cohort was divided into three groups: low volume (0–7 patients with SE per year), medium volume (8–22 patients with SE per year), and high volume (> 22 patients with SE per year). Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether medium or high hospital volume had lower rates of inpatient medical complications compared with low-volume hospitals.
Results
A total of 137,410 patients with SE were included in the analysis. Most patients (
n
 = 50,939; 37%) were treated in a low-volume hospital, 31% (
n
 = 42,724) were treated in a medium-volume facility, and 18% (
n
 = 25,207) were treated in a high-volume hospital. Patients undergoing treatment at medium-volume hospitals (vs. low-volume hospitals) had higher odds of pulmonary complications (odds ratio [OR] 1.18 [95% confidence interval {CI} 1.12–1.25];
p
 < 0.001), sepsis (OR 1.24 [95% CI 1.08–1.43]
p
 = 0.002), and length of stay (OR 1.13 [95% CI 1.0 –1.19]
p
 < 0.001). High-volume hospitals had significantly higher odds of urinary tract infections (OR 1.21 [95% CI 1.11–1.33]
p
 < 0.001), pulmonary complications (OR 1.19 [95% CI 1.10–1.28],
p
 < 0.001), thrombosis (OR 2.13 [95% CI 1.44–3.14],
p
 < 0.001), and renal complications (OR 1.21 [95% CI 1.07–1.37],
p
 = 0.002). In addition, high-volume hospitals had lower odds of metabolic (OR 0.81 [95% CI 0.72–0.91],
p
 < 0.001), neurological complications (OR 0.80 [95% CI 0.69–0.93],
p
 = 0.004), and disposition to a facility (OR 0.89 [95% CI 0.82–0.96],
p
 < 0.001) compared with lower-volume hospitals.
Conclusions
Our study demonstrates certain associations between hospital volume and outcomes for SE hospitalizations. Further studies using more granular data about the type, severity, and duration of SE and types of treatment are warranted to better understand how hospital volume may impact care and prognosis of patients.