This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Quality of Care, Other  • Surgical Interventions  • Cardiovascular/ Cardiothoracic Surgery  • Cardiovascular Intervention  • Revascularization  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In Reply: I agree with Dr Mariotto that it is possible that lower-volume centers (ie, those with potentially excess capacity) may be less discriminating in their case selection. We discussed this in our article. However, assessment of the "appropriateness" of bypass for specific cases is quite challenging and was beyond the scope of our study. Second, our study indeed found that, in aggregate, higher-volume sites had lower bypass mortality risks compared with low-volume sites. However, these differences in outcome were not uniform. As we noted, many low-volume sites had outcomes that were equal to or better than those observed at high-volume sites. Thus, the informed consumer would ideally want to compare actual hospital risk-adjusted surgical outcomes as opposed to relying on a loosely associated surrogate such as case volume. Finally, I agree that there may be other advantages of centralization of surgical volumes into centers of excellence, and our study . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH
Outcomes Research and Assessment Group
Duke Clinical Research Institute
Durham, NC

RELATED ARTICLES

Hospital Volume and Quality
Aldo Mariotto
JAMA. 2004;291(17):2077.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Procedural Volume as a Marker of Quality for CABG Surgery
Eric D. Peterson, Laura P. Coombs, Elizabeth R. DeLong, Constance K. Haan, and T. Bruce Ferguson
JAMA. 2004;291(2):195-201.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT