A Cross-Sectional Study of Firearm Injuries in Emergency Department Patients.

This is a single-center cross-sectional study of consecutive patients who presented to an urban emergency department (ED) with firearm injuries between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2016. The objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of patients in this cohort and identify those at risk of firearm re-injury to inform future interventions. Patients in this cohort with both initial and recidivistic firearm injures were found to be predominately young, African American men. OBJECTIVE: To describe the characteristics of patients who present to the emergency department (ED) with firearm injuries and identify those at risk of firearm re-injury. METHODS: This is a single-center cross-sectional study of consecutive patients who presented to the ED with firearm injuries between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2016. We collected data on patient demographics, history of previous traumatic injury including firearm injury, and whether the firearm injury was self-inflicted. We also evaluated characteristics of patients in this cohort who returned to the ED with firearm re-injury within a one year follow-up period. RESULTS: This study included 1226 unique patients. Our data demonstrate that patients presenting to the ED for firearm injury were predominately young, African American males. Fourteen percent had a history of a previous firearm injury and 20% had a history of other non-firearm assault. Patients who had been shot previously were more likely to be African American, male, uninsured, unemployed, and have a history of other non-accidental trauma. Eight percent of firearm injuries were self-inflicted. All 35 patients who sustained a new firearm injury within 1 year of the index injury were African American males with a median age of 23. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients treated in the ED for firearm injuries, young, African American males are disproportionately at risk of firearm injury and re-injury. ED visits for traumatic injury represent an opportunity to provide social work, case work, and counseling-based interventions to help disrupt the cycle of violence in high-risk individuals.

Predicting Distal Aortic Remodeling After Endovascular Repair for Chronic DeBakey III Aortic Dissection.

BACKGROUND: Chronic DeBakey III aortic dissection is typically managed with open aortic reconstruction. Thoracic endovascular aortic grafting (TEVAR) has been attempted in patients with chronic DeBakey III with improved outcomes over medical management, however with frequent failures. This study investigates factors associated with positive aortic remodeling from a large aortic center. METHODS: Three-dimensional reconstructions (M2S, West Lebanon, NH) of computed tomography angiography scans of 48 patients who underwent TEVAR from 2005 to 2015 were analyzed. The dissection was characterized, and measurements were obtained from preoperative and postoperative scans at four time points. Standard univariate Wilcoxon rank sum and Fisher's exact tests were used to analyze continuous and ordinal/nominal data, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was performed. RESULTS: In a multivariate logistic model, having fewer than two visceral vessels off the true lumen was a negative predictor of total thrombosis (odd ratio [OR] 0.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: <0.01 to 0.84, p = 0.04). In a logistic model that predicted total thrombosis in zones 3 and 4, maximum diameter 2 cm above the celiac axis was a significant negative predictor (OR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.99, p = 0.05). In a model that predicted failure of the maximum overall diameter of the descending aorta to regress within 1 year after TEVAR, maximum overall diameter preoperatively (OR 1.19, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.29, p = 0.03) and tear location on the greater curve (OR 18.1, 95% CI: 1.3 to 243, p = 0.03) were significant positive predictors. CONCLUSIONS: TEVAR is feasible in chronic dissection but is limited by complex dissection-related anatomy. Increasing number of visceral vessels off the false lumen, maximum preoperative aortic size, and location of the primary tear on the greater curve were associated with poorer remodeling.

Outcomes, readmissions, and costs in transfemoral and alterative access transcatheter aortic valve replacement in the US Medicare population.

OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively evaluate and compare utilization, outcomes, and especially costs of transfemoral (TF), transapical (TA), and transaortic (TAO) transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). METHODS: All Medicare fee-for-service patients undergoing TF (n = 4065), TA (n = 691), or TAO (n = 274) TAVR between January 1, 2011, and November 30, 2012, were identified using Health Care Procedure Classification Codes present on Medicare claims. Hospital charges from Medicare claims were converted to costs using hospital-specific Medicare cost-to-charge ratios. RESULTS: TA and TAO patients were similar in age, race, and common comorbidities. Compared with TF patients, TA and TAO patients were more likely to be female and to have peripheral vascular disease, chronic lung disease, and renal failure. Thirty-day mortality rates were higher among TA and TAO patients than among TF patients (TA, 9.6%; TAO, 8.0%; TF, 5.0%; P < .001). Adjusted mortality beyond 1 year did not differ by access. TA patients were more likely to require cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Increased adjusted mortality was associated with CPB (hazard ratio, 2.13; P < .01) and increased 30-day cost ($62,000 [interquartile range (IQR)], $45,100-$86,400 versus $48,800 [IQR, $38,100-$62,900]; P < .01). Cost at 30 days was lowest for TF ($48,600) compared with TA ($49,800; P < .01) and TAO ($53,200; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: For patients ineligible to receive TF TAVR, TAO and TA approaches offer similar clinical outcomes at similar cost with acceptable operative and 1-year survival, except for higher rates of CPB use in TA patients. CPB was associated with worse survival and increased costs.

Cost and contribution margin of transcatheter versus surgical aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost of and payments for transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), a novel and expensive technology, and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). METHODS: Medicare claims provided hospital charges, payments, and outcomes between January and December 2012. Hospital costs and charges were estimated using hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratios. Costs and payments were examined in propensity score- matched TAVR and SAVR patients. RESULTS: Medicare spent $215,770,200 nationally on 4083 patients who underwent TAVR in 2012. Hospital costs were higher for TAVR patients (median, $50,200; interquartile range [IQR], $39,800-$64,300) than for propensity-matched SAVR patients ($45,500; IQR, $34,500-$63,300; P < .01), owing largely to higher estimated medical supply costs, including the implanted valve prosthesis. Postprocedure hospital length of stay (LOS) length was shorter for TAVR patients (median, 5 days [IQR, 4-8 days] vs 7 days [IQR, 5-9 days]; P < .01), as was total intensive care unit (ICU) LOS (median, 2 days [IQR, 0-5 days] vs 3 days [IQR, 1-6 days]; P < .01). Medicare payments were lower for TAVR hospitalizations (median, $49,500; IQR, $36,900-$64,600) than for SAVR (median, $50,400; IQR, $37,400-$65,800; P < .01). The median of the differences between payments and costs (contribution margin) was -$3380 for TAVR hospitalizations and $2390 for SAVR hospitalizations (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: TAVR accounted for $215 million in Medicare payments in its first year of clinical use. Among SAVR Medicare patients at a similar risk level, TAVR was associated with higher hospital costs despite shorter ICU LOS and hospital LOS. Overall and/or medical device cost reductions are needed for TAVR to have a net neutral financial impact on hospitals.

At the Root of the Repair Debate: Outcomes After Elective Aortic Root Replacements for Aortic Insufficiency With Aneurysm.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in aortic valve-sparing and valve repair operations, but the ideal operation and timing of intervention in these generally younger patients undergoing operations for aortic insufficiency (AI) and dilated ascending aorta remains controversial. METHODS: Root replacements at a single institution from 2002 to 2014 were reviewed. Inclusion criteria were age younger than 70 and presence of moderate or greater aortic insufficiency (AI), with or without aortic aneurysm. Of 1,425 root replacements, 220 patients were considered in the final analysis. RESULTS: Moderate AI was present in 87 patients and severe AI in 133 patients. The 30-day mortality was 0% in moderate AI patients and 2% (n = 3) in severe AI patients (p = 0.3). Freedom from reoperation was 95% at 10 years. Severe preoperative AI was associated with worse long-term survival compared with moderate AI (hazard ratio, 2.6; p = 0.04). Patients undergoing root replacement with moderate AI had similar survival compared with the age- and gender-matched United States population (log-rank p = 0.93), whereas patients with severe AI had significantly worse survival (log-rank p = 0.02). Other multivariable predictors of decreased long-term survival were age (hazard ratio, 1.1; p = 0.01) and preoperative renal failure (hazard ratio, 6.9; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Elective root replacement operations in patients younger than 70 are associated with low rates of mortality and reoperation, which should be considered the benchmark operation for aortic valve-sparing or repair operations in similar patients. Worse survival was associated with severe AI and older age, suggesting earlier intervention may be an appropriate therapeutic strategy in selected patients.