QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]
Author:
 		Keyword(s):
Year:  Vol:  Page: 
Home Current Issue Archives Topic Collections Search Blog Subscribe Contact Us Help

   

 

Health Affairs, 26, no. 4 (2007): 1198
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.26.4.1198
© 2007 by Project HOPE
 
New Online
 * Obama's Success & Next Steps
 * 3 Health Policy Options for President Obama
 * A Hybrid Proposal
 * Bipartisan Compromise
This Article
* Extract Freely available
* Reprint (PDF)
* Submit a response to this article
* Alert me when this article is cited
* Alert me when Comments are posted
* Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
* E-mail this article to a friend
* Similar articles in this journal
* Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
* Similar articles in PubMed
* Alert me to new issues of the journal
* Add to My Personal Archive
* Download to Citation Manager
*Reprints & Permissions
Citing Articles
* Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
* Articles by Kalant, N.
* Search for Related Content
PubMed
* PubMed Citation
* Articles by Kalant, N.

Letters

Selective Use Of References?

In their paper on the volume of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgeries (Jan/Feb 07), Chad Wilson and colleagues find that since 1992 the number of small specialty cardiac hospitals has increased steadily. As a consequence, the proportion of CABG operations performed at low-volume hospitals has increased, while the proportion at high-volume hospitals has decreased. Convinced that hospitals with lower surgical volume have higher operative mortality, the authors fear that the change in surgery distribution might increase the overall CABG mortality rate.

In their Note 4, the authors provide three references in support of their categorical statement that low-volume hospitals have high mortality rates. But they do not explain that each of the references points out that the difference in mortality between low- and high-volume hospitals is modest (or small) and not a reliable indicator of differences in quality of care. Furthermore, they appear to be unaware that the strength of the relationship between surgical volume and mortality has been found to greatly diminish with time, as technical and other aspects of the procedure have evolved.1

Robert Sade reminds us that "the primary obligation of physicians is to serve the medical interests of their patients." 2 If, for any reason, investigators ignore important evidence that might influence policy decisions, they will not be acting in their patients’ best interests.

Norman Kalant
McGill University (Retired), Toronto, Ontario

  NOTES
 

  1. A.J. Sowden, J.J. Deeks, and T.A. Sheldon, "Volume and Outcome in Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: True Association or Artefact?" British Medical Journal 311, no. 6998 (1995): 151–155[Abstract/Free Full Text]; and N. Kalant and I. Shrier, "Volume and Outcome of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: Are More and Less the Same?" Canadian Journal of Cardiology 20, no. 1 (2004): 81–86.[ISI][Medline]
  2. B.K. Nallamothu et al., "Should Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Be Regionalized?" Annals of Thoracic Surgery 80, no. 5 (2005): 1572–1581.[Free Full Text]


Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati    What's this?




Home | Current Issue | Archives | Topic Collections | Search | Blog | Subscribe | Contact Us | Help

© 2001-2007 Project HOPE–The People-to-People Organization
Terms and Policies