Failure to Rescue: A New Society of Thoracic Surgeons Quality Metric for Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Failure to rescue (FTR) focuses on the ability to prevent death among patients who have postoperative complications. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Quality Measurement Task Force has developed a new, risk-adjusted FTR quality metric for adult cardiac surgery. METHODS: The study population was taken from 1118 STS Adult Cardiac Surgery Database participants including patients who underwent isolated CABG, aortic valve replacement with or without CABG, or mitral valve repair or replacement with or without CABG between January 2015 and June 2019. The FTR analysis was derived from patients who had one or more of the following complications: prolonged ventilation, stroke, reoperation, and renal failure. Data were randomly split into 70% training samples (n = 89,059) and 30% validation samples (n = 38,242). Risk variables included STS predicted risk of mortality, operative procedures, and intraoperative variables (cardiopulmonary bypass and cross-clamp times, unplanned procedures, need for circulatory support, and massive transfusion). RESULTS: Overall mortality for patients undergoing any of the index operations during the study period was 2.6% (27,045 of 1,058,138), with mortality of 0.9% (8316 of 930,837), 8% (7618 of 94,918), 30.6% (8247 of 26,934), 51.9% (2661 of 5123), and 62.3% (203 of 326), respectively, among patients having none, one, two, three, or four complications. The FTR risk model calibration was excellent, as were model discrimination (c-statistic 0.806) and the Brier score (0.102). Using 95% Bayesian credible intervals, 62 participants (5.6%) performed worse and 53 (4.7%) performed better than expected. CONCLUSIONS: A new risk-adjusted FTR metric has been developed that complements existing STS performance measures. The metric specifically assesses institutional effectiveness of postoperative care, allowing hospitals to target quality improvement efforts.

Volume-Outcome Association of Mitral Valve Surgery in the United States.

Importance: Early surgery for severe primary degenerative mitral regurgitation is recommended, provided optimal outcomes are achievable. Contemporary national data defining mitral valve surgery volume and outcomes are lacking. Objective: To assess national 30-day and 1-year outcomes of mitral valve surgery and define the hospital- and surgeon-level volume-outcome association with mitral valve repair or replacement (MVRR) in patients with primary mitral regurgitation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cross-sectional observational study used the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database to identify patients undergoing isolated MVRR for primary mitral regurgitation in the United States. Operative data were collected from July 1, 2011, to December 31, 2016, and analyzed from March 1 to July 1, 2019, with data linked to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 30-day in-hospital operative mortality after isolated MVRR for primary mitral regurgitation. Secondary outcomes were 30-day composite mortality plus morbidity (any occurrence of bleeding, stroke, prolonged ventilation, renal failure, or deep wound infection), rate of successful mitral valve repair of primary mitral regurgitation (residual mitral regurgitation of mild [1+] or better), and 1-year mortality, reoperation, and rehospitalization for heart failure. Results: A total of 55 311 patients, 1094 hospitals, and 2410 surgeons were identified. Increasing hospital and surgeon volumes were associated with lower risk-adjusted 30-day mortality, lower 30-day composite mortality plus morbidity, and higher rate of successful repair. The lowest vs highest hospital volume quartile had higher 1-year risk-adjusted mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61, 95% CI, 1.31-1.98), but not mitral reoperation (odds ratio [OR], 1.51; 95% CI, 0.81-2.78) or hospitalization for heart failure (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.96-1.64). The surgeon-level 1-year volume-outcome associations were similar for mortality (HR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.32-1.94) but not significant for mitral reoperation (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.60-2.18) or hospitalization for heart failure (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.91-1.50). Conclusions and Relevance: National hospital- and surgeon-level inverse volume-outcome associations were observed for 30-day and 1-year mortality after mitral valve surgery for primary mitral regurgitation. These findings may help to define access to experienced centers and surgeons for the management of primary mitral regurgitation.

Mitral Valve Repair Versus Replacement in Elderly With Degenerative Disease: Analysis of the STS Adult Cardiac Surgery Database.

BACKGROUND: It has been postulated that mitral valve repair in the elderly does not confer short-term benefits over mitral valve replacement with complete preservation of the chordal apparatus. Our purpose was to test this hypothesis using data from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (STS ACSD). METHODS: Patients aged 70 years or more undergoing primary isolated elective mitral valve repair or mitral valve replacement for degenerative disease were obtained from the STS ACSD versions 2.73 and 2.81. Patients with a concomitant tricuspid procedure, atrial fibrillation surgery, or atrial septal defect/patent foramen ovale repair were included. The two treatment groups were further stratified by age in years (70 to 74, 75 to 79, and 80 or more). Adjusted 30-day mortality rates were analyzed by mitral procedure and chordal preservation strategy. RESULTS: The study included 12,043 patients, of whom 71% underwent mitral valve repair. Observed 30-day mortality after repair was lower than after replacement (2.2% versus 4.8%, respectively; p < 0.0001). Using repair as reference, adjusted operative mortality was higher for replacement in the overall cohort (odds ratio 1.83, 95% confidence interval: 1.45 to 2.31). There was no significant difference in mortality between complete versus partial chordal preservation in repair (odds ratio 1.24, 95% confidence interval: 0.80 to 1.93). Mitral valve replacement with chordal preservation remained inferior to repair (odds ratio 1.66, 95% confidence interval: 1.28 to 2.14). The failed repair rate was 7.9%, with a 30-day mortality of 6%. CONCLUSIONS: In patients aged 70 years or more, degenerative mitral repair was associated with lower operative mortality compared with replacement, irrespective of chordal preservation strategy. Failed repairs reduced this short-term benefit compared with chordal-sparing replacement as evidenced by the similar operative mortality on an intention to treat analysis.

Racial Comparisons of the Outcomes of Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Implantation Using the Medicare Database.

Racial disparities in the outcomes after intervention for aortic valve disease remain understudied. We stratified patients by race who underwent surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in the Medicare database. The TAVI cohort consisted of 17,973 patients (3.9% were black and 1.0% were Hispanic). The SAVR cohort consisted of 95,078 patients, (4.8% were black and 1.3% were Hispanic). Most comorbidities were more common in blacks. After TAVI, 30-day mortality was not significantly different in races with both unadjusted and adjusted data. There were no significant racial differences in readmission rates or discharge to home after TAVI. After SAVR, black patients had worse unadjusted 30-day and 1-year mortality than whites or Hispanics (30-day mortality, 4.7% vs 6.2% vs 4.7% for whites, blacks, and Hispanics, respectively, p = 0.0001; 1-year mortality 11.7% vs 16.1% vs 12.5%, respectively, p = 0.0001); however, after adjustment, there were no differences in mortality. Black patients had higher 30-day readmission rates after SAVR (20.1% vs 25.2% vs 21.7% for whites, blacks, and Hispanics, respectively, p = 0.0001), which persisted after adjustment for comorbidities. Minorities were underrepresented in both SAVR and TAVI relative to what would be predicted by population prevalence. In conclusion, while blacks have worse outcomes in SAVR compared with whites or Hispanics, race did not impact mortality, readmission, or discharge to home in TAVI. Both blacks and Hispanics were underrepresented compared with what would be predicted by population prevalence.

Outcomes of Early Mitral Valve Reoperation in the Medicare Population.

BACKGROUND: Surgical series on mitral valve reoperation are limited by small numbers and lack of national representation. Large-scale outcomes of reoperation for mitral valve surgery remain uncertain. METHODS: This is a descriptive analysis of 1,627 Medicare beneficiaries who underwent mitral valve reoperation within a 3-year follow-up period after an initial mitral operation (repair or replacement) that took place between 2000 and 2006. The primary outcomes were hospital mortality and long-term survival. RESULTS: The 1,627 patients included in the study comprise 1.6% of patients who underwent operation between 2000 and 2006. The initial surgery was repair in 49.9%, bioprosthetic replacement in 22.0%, and mechanical replacement in 28.1%. Re-repair was performed in 15.4%. Hospital mortality was 12.0% and was similar for repair and bioprosthetic or mechanical replacement. Reoperative mortality was similar for men and women and for patients aged 75 years or less versus more than 75 years; and was significantly higher for nonelective than for elective operations (15.6% versus 5.5%, p = 0.0001), for patients with endocarditis than without endocarditis (21.4% versus 11.0%, p = 0.0001), and for patients with heart failure than without heart failure (14.2% versus 9.9%, p = 0.0080). Cumulative long-term survival rates were 58.6% at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of mitral valve reoperation within 3 years after initial repair or replacement is low but carries high surgical risk, which is significantly increased by certain preoperative characteristics, such as urgent status, endocarditis, and heart failure.

Improving coronary artery bypass grafting readmission outcomes from 2000 to 2012 in the Medicare population.

OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to examine trends in 30-day readmission after coronary artery bypass grafting in the Medicare population over 13 years. METHODS: The study included isolated coronary artery bypass grafting procedures in the Medicare population from January 2000 to November 2012. Comorbidities and causes of readmission were determined using Internal Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification diagnostic codes. RESULTS: The cohort included 1,116,991 patients. Readmission rates decreased from 19.5% in 2000 to 16.6% in 2012 (P = .0001). There was significant improvement across all categories of admission status, age, race, gender, and hospital annual coronary artery bypass grafting volume that were analyzed. Adjusted odds of readmission in 2000 compared with 2012 was 1.28 (95% confidence interval, 1.24-1.32). Median length of stay for the readmission episode was 5 days, which improved to 4 days by 2012. Hospital mortality during the readmission episode was 2.8% overall and declined to 2.4% in 2012 (P = .0001). The most common primary readmission diagnoses were heart failure (12.6%), postoperative wound infection/nonhealing wound (8.9%), arrhythmias (6.4%), and pleural effusions (3.7%). Readmission for wound infections/nonhealing wounds decreased significantly over time, from 9.8% to 6.5% (P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In a large cohort of Medicare patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting over 13 years, there was a significant decrease in 30-day readmission rates, a reduction in readmission for wound infections, and reduced mortality during the readmission episode, despite an increase in patient comorbidities. The improvement in readmission rates was seen regardless of patient variables examined.

Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Outcomes in Nonagenarians Stratified by Transfemoral and Transapical Approach.

BACKGROUND: Survival and other outcomes of nonagenarians undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in the Medicare population are unclear. METHODS: Patients aged 65 years and older who underwent TAVR from November 2011 through 2013 were considered for inclusion. RESULTS: The study consisted of 18,283 patients and 19.3% were aged 90 years or older. Compared with patients younger than 90 years, patients 90 years or older were less likely to have a number of comorbidities, including previous myocardial infarction (17.5% versus 21.8%), previous coronary artery bypass grafting (20.0% versus 35.0%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (25.4% versus 39.0%) among others. The 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were 8.4% versus 5.9% (p = 0.0001) and 25.4% versus 21.5% (p = 0.0001) in the older and younger groups, respectively (odds ratio [OR] 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.28 to 1.70, p = 0.0001). Patients 90 years and older were more likely to undergo pacemaker insertion (11.1% versus 8.3%, p = 0.0001). Among nonagenarians, compared with the transapical group, patients undergoing transfemoral TAVR had lower 30-day (7.2% versus 13.6%, p = 0.0001) and 1-year (23.8% versus 31.6%, p = 0.0001) mortality rates, were more likely to be discharged home (54.4% versus 34.1%, p = 0.0001), and had lower 30-day readmission rates (23.8% versus 31.8%, p = 0.0001). After adjustment for patient characteristics, transapical TAVR was an independent predictor of 30-day mortality rate (OR 1.94, 95% CI: 1.48 to 2.56, p = 0.0001) and readmission (OR 1.46, 95% CI: 1.19 to 1.80, p = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing TAVR, although 30-day and 1-year mortality rates were slightly worse for nonagenarians than their younger counterparts, long-term survival was still encouraging, with 75% of nonagenarians living to 1 year. Transapical TAVR was associated with worse outcomes in nonagenarians.

Hospital Readmission after Aortic Valve Replacement: Impact of Preoperative Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: Large-scale data of heart failure (HF) readmission after aortic valve replacement (AVR) are limited. METHODS: A total of 40,751 Medicare beneficiaries >65 years who underwent primary isolated AVR between 2000 and 2004 were included in the study. Preoperative HF was defined using ICD-9-CM diagnostic codes from the index admission and any hospitalization during the preceding year. Cumulative readmission incidences over five years were computed for those patients with and without preoperative HF, while adjusting for propensity scores. RESULTS: The median patient age was 76 years. At 30 days, all-cause readmission was 21.5% and HF readmission was 3.9%. Patients with preoperative HF had higher postoperative HF readmission rates compared to those without (30 days, 6.3% versus 2.2%; one year, 13.9% versus 4.4%; five years, 6.6% versus 10.3%, p = 0.0001). The incremental risk of HF on readmission was >2 following adjustment. In patients with preoperative HF, the number of admissions was associated with increased postoperative HF readmissions. At 30 days, patients with no preoperative HF admissions had a HF readmission rate of 5.3%, while those with one, two, three and four or more preoperative HF admissions had rates of 8.2%, 11.9%, 13.8% and 17.4%, respectively. This trend persisted over the five-year follow up period. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative HF readmission accounted for about one-fifth of all-cause readmissions after AVR in Medicare beneficiaries. Preoperative HF significantly contributed to postoperative readmission, both all-cause and HF-specific, which likely limits the symptomatic benefit of surgery. These data support early aortic valve intervention prior to the development of clinically apparent HF.

Readmission after inpatient percutaneous coronary intervention in the Medicare population from 2000 to 2012.

BACKGROUND: Since year 2000, reducing hospital readmissions has become a public health priority. In addition, there have been major changes in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) during this period. METHODS: The cohort consisted of 3,250,194 patients admitted for PCI from January 2000 through November 2012. RESULTS: Overall, 30-day readmission was 15.8%. Readmission rates declined from 16.1% in 2000 to 15.4% in 2012 (adjusted odds ratio for readmission 1.33 in 2000 compared with 2012). Of all readmissions after PCI, the majority were for cardiovascular-related conditions (>60%); however, only a small percentage (<8%) of total readmissions were for acute myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or cardiac arrest/cardiogenic shock. A much larger percentage of patients were readmitted with chest pain/angina (7.9%), chronic ischemic heart disease (26.6%), and heart failure (12%). A small proportion was due to procedural complications and gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. The use of PCI with stenting during readmissions was variable, increasing from 14.2% in 2000 to 23.7% in 2006 and then declining to 12.1% in 2012. Hospital mortality during readmission was 2.5% overall and varied over time (2.8% in 2000, decreasing to 2.2% in 2006 and then rising again to 3.1% in 2012). Patients who were readmitted had >4× higher 30-day mortality than those who were not. CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare beneficiaries, readmission after PCI declined over time despite patients having more comorbidities. This translated into a 33% lower likelihood of readmission in 2012 compared with 2000. A small proportion of readmissions were for acute coronary syndromes.

Failure to Rescue Rates After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: An Analysis From The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database.

BACKGROUND: Failure to rescue (FTR) is increasingly recognized as an important quality indicator in surgery. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database was used to develop FTR metrics and a predictive FTR model for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: The study included 604,154 patients undergoing isolated CABG at 1,105 centers from January 2010 to January 2014. FTR was defined as death after four complications: stroke, renal failure, reoperation, and prolonged ventilation. FTR was determined for each complication and a composite of the four complications. A statistical model to predict FTR was developed. RESULTS: FTR rates were 22.3% for renal failure, 16.4% for stroke, 12.4% for reoperation, 12.1% for prolonged ventilation, and 10.5% for the composite. Mortality increased with multiple complications and with specific combinations of complications. The multivariate risk model for prediction of FTR demonstrated a C index of 0.792 and was well calibrated, with a 1.0% average difference between observed/expected (O/E) FTR rates. With centers grouped into mortality terciles, complication rates increased modestly (11.4% to 15.7%), but FTR rates more than doubled (6.8% to 13.9%) from the lowest to highest terciles. Centers in the lowest complication rate tercile had an FTR O/E of 1.14, whereas centers in the highest complication rate tercile had an FTR O/E of 0.91. CONCLUSIONS: CABG mortality rates vary directly with FTR, but complication rates have little relation to death. FTR rates derived from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons data can serve as national benchmarks. Predicted FTR rates may facilitate patient counseling, and FTR O/E ratios have promise as valuable quality metrics.

Outcomes of Patients With Severe Chronic Lung Disease Who Are Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we sought to determine the clinical outcomes after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) among patients with chronic lung disease (CLD) and to evaluate the safety of transaortic versus transapical alternate access approaches in patients with varying severities of CLD. METHODS: Clinical records for patients undergoing TAVR from 2011 to 2014 in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons/American College of Cardiology Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry were linked to Medicare hospital claims (n = 11,656). Clinical outcomes were evaluated across strata of CLD severity, and the risk-adjusted association between access route and post-TAVR mortality was determined among patients with severe CLD. RESULTS: In this cohort (median age, 84 years; 51.7% female), moderate to severe CLD was present in 27.7% (14.3%, moderate; 13.4%, severe). Compared with patients with no or mild CLD, patients with severe CLD had a higher rate of post-TAVR mortality to 1-year (32.3% versus 21.0%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.31 to 1.66), as did those with moderate CLD (25.5%; adjusted HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.30). The adjusted rate of mortality was similar for transapical versus transaortic approaches to 1 year (adjusted HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.65). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate or severe CLD is associated with an increased risk of death to 1-year after TAVR, and among patients with severe CLD, the risk of death appears to be similar with either transapical or transaortic alternate-access approaches. Further study is necessary to understand strategies to mitigate risk associated with CLD and the long-term implications of these findings.

Evaluation of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Online Risk Calculator for Assessment of Risk in Patients Presenting for Aortic Valve Replacement After Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Graft: An Analysis Using the STS Adult Cardiac Surgery Database.

BACKGROUND: Accurate risk assessment in patients presenting for aortic valve replacement (AVR) after prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is essential for appropriate selection of surgical versus percutaneous therapy. METHODS: We included 6,534 patients in The Society for Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (October 2009 through December 2013) who underwent elective, isolated reoperative AVR for aortic stenosis after prior CABG. Case-specific PROM was calculated and observed-to-expected ratios were inspected across the spectrum of risk. A cohort-specific recalibration equation was derived using logistic regression: = expit(-0.6453+0.6147*logit(PROM) -0.0709*logit(PROM)(ˆ)2), where PROM is the predicted risk of mortality. The proportion of patients reclassified as low (PROM < 4%), intermediate (4% to < 8%), high (8% to < 12%), and very high risk (≥ 12%) was calculated using the recalibration equation. The performance of the cohort-specific recalibration equation was then compared with the generic recalibration for quarterly STS reports. RESULTS: The STS online risk calculator overestimates risk for low, intermediate, and high risk categories. Using the recalibrated risk equation, a substantial proportion of patients were reclassified as the following: 25.5% from intermediate to low risk; 39.7% from high to intermediate risk; and 41.5% from very high to high risk. Comparison of the cohort-specific recalibration equation to the generic quarterly STS recalibration demonstrated very similar results. CONCLUSIONS: In patients presenting for AVR after prior CABG, the STS online risk calculator overestimates risk for all but the highest risk patients. Using a cohort-specific recalibration equation, a substantial proportion of patients would be downgraded to lower risk categories. The cohort-specific recalibration correlates well with the existing generic quarterly STS recalibration. The findings of this study support recommendations for periodic recalibration of the online risk calculator in order to facilitate clinical decision making in real time.

Contemporary Outcomes of Repeat Aortic Valve Replacement: A Benchmark for Transcatheter Valve-in-Valve Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Reoperative aortic valve replacement (re-AVR) after previous AVR is a complex procedure involving redo sternotomy and removal of a previous prosthesis. With increasing use of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement for failed aortic bioprostheses, an evaluation of contemporary outcomes of re-AVR in patients with bioprostheses is warranted. METHODS: The study included 3,380 patients from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (July 2011 to September 2013) who underwent elective, isolated re-AVR after a previous AVR. Outcomes in these patients were compared with those of 54,183 patients with isolated primary AVR during the same period. A subgroup analysis of explanted bioprostheses in re-AVR (previous bioprosthetic valve: n = 2,213) was performed. RESULTS: Re-AVR patients were younger (66 vs 70 years, p < 0.001) compared with primary AVR patients. Re-AVR was associated with higher operative mortality (4.6% vs 2.2%, p < 0.0001), composite operative mortality and major morbidity (21.6% vs 11.8%, p < 0.0001), postoperative stroke (1.9% vs 1.4%, p = 0.02), postoperative aortic insufficiency mild or greater (2.8% vs 1.7%, p < 0.0001), pacemaker requirement (11.0% vs 4.3%, p < 0.0001), and vascular complications (0.06% vs 0.01%, p = 0.04). For the explanted previous bioprosthetic valve group, operative mortality was 4.7%, composite outcome was 21.9%, stroke rate was 1.8%, and pacemaker requirement was 11.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Re-AVR is now performed with an acceptable operative mortality, which is higher than primary AVR. The overall incidence of stroke, vascular complication, and postoperative aortic insufficiency was low although higher than primary AVR. These results may serve as a benchmark for future analysis of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement and may have an effect on future choice of transcatheter aortic valve replacement vs re-AVR.

Magnitude of negative impact of preoperative heart failure on mortality during aortic valve replacement in the medicare population.

BACKGROUND: In patients with severe aortic stenosis, the development of heart failure (HF) prior to aortic valve replacement (AVR) is associated with worse prognosis. We sought to quantify the effect of progressive HF on mortality during AVR in the Medicare population over a 10-year period. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries 65 or greater years of age who underwent primary isolated AVR from 2000 through 2009 were included (n = 114,135). Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards were used to model adjusted operative mortality (OM) and long-term survival, according to the presence of preoperative HF and its duration (≤ 3 vs > 3 months). RESULTS: The incidence of preoperative comorbidities was high, and it was higher in patients with preoperative HF, compared with those without. Preoperative HF dramatically increased adjusted OM, odds ratio (OR) 1.57 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48 to 1.67). Preoperative HF greater than 3 months conferred a significant increase in adjusted OM compared with HF 3 months or less, OR 1.43 (95% CI, 1.32 to 1.55). Similarly, preoperative HF increased the likelihood of long-term mortality by 50%, hazard ratio (HR) 1.48 (95% CI, 1.45 to 1.51). Long-term mortality was higher for patients with longer duration of preoperative HF as compared with those without preoperative HF, HR 1.81 (95% CI, 1.75 to 1.87) and compared with patients with HF 3 months or less, HR 1.26 (95% CI, 1.23 to 1.30). CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of the negative impact of preoperative HF on operative mortality and long-term survival of elderly patients undergoing primary isolated AVR is significant with 50% increased likelihood of adverse outcome. Duration of preoperative HF is also significantly related to mortality. These data support AVR in the elderly prior to the development of HF.

Mitral Valve Surgery in The Elderly: Should We Treat Atrial Fibrillation Too?

BACKGROUND: The study aim was to examine whether concomitant atrial fibrillation (AF) surgery at the time of mitral valve surgery in the elderly results in increased operative mortality (OM). METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥65 years undergoing primary mitral valve repair or replacement between 2004 and 2006 were included. The cohort was divided into three groups: Group 1, AF- (n = 2,705); group 2, AF+AF surgery- (n = 2,119), and group 3, AF+AF surgery+ (n = 1,832). The primary outcomes were OM and long-term survival. A secondary outcome was the association between hospital annual mitral procedure volume and OM. RESULTS: The unadjusted OM was 6.4% for group 1 (AF-), 10.3% for group 2 (AF+AF surgery-), and 7.1% for group 3 (AF+AF surgery+) (p = 0.0001). Adjusted OM for AF+AF surgery+ patients was not significantly different from that of AF- patients (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90-1.48), or from AF+AF surgery patients (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.66-1.06). When comparisons were adjusted for differences in baseline characteristics, AF+AF surgery- patients were more likely to experience long-term mortality than AF- patients (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.17-1.45), as well as AF+AF surgery+ patients (HR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.31). An annual average mitral procedure volume ≤40 was independently predictive of OM (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.13-1.78). The effect of institutional volume on mortality was strongest in those who received AF surgery (AF+AF surgery+) (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.15-2.65), compared to those who did not undergo surgery (AF+AF surgery-) (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.86-1.67). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients undergoing mitral valve surgery do not appear to have an increased mortality when clinical judgment favored the performance of concomitant AF surgery.

Hospital volume, mitral repair rates, and mortality in mitral valve surgery in the elderly: an analysis of US hospitals treating Medicare fee-for-service patients.

BACKGROUND: The volume-outcome relationship has been suggested as a quality metric in mitral valve surgery and would be particularly relevant in the elderly because of their greater burden of comorbidities and higher perioperative risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study included 1239 hospitals performing mitral valve surgery on Medicare beneficiaries from 2000 through 2009. Only 9% of hospitals performed more than 40 mitral operations per year, 29% performed 5 or less, and 51% performed 10 or less. Mitral repair rates were low; 22.7% of hospitals performed 1 or less, 65.1% performed 5 or less, and only 5.6% performed more than 20 mitral repairs per year in those aged 65 years or more. Repair rates increased with increasing volume of mitral operations per year: 5 or less, 30.5%; 6 to 10, 32.9%; 11 to 20, 34.9%; 21 to 40, 38.8%; and more than 40, 42.0% (P = .0001). Hospitals with lower volume had significantly higher adjusted operative mortality compared with hospitals performing more than 40 cases per year: 5 or less cases per year, odds ratio (OR) 1.58 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.40-1.78); 6 to 10 cases per year, OR 1.29 (95% CI, 1.17-1.43); 11 to 20 cases per year, OR 1.17 (95% CI, 1.07-1.28); 21 to 40 cases per year, OR 1.15 (95% CI, 1.05-1.26). Hospitals with lower mitral repair rates had an increased likelihood of operative mortality relative to the top quartile: lowest quartile, OR 1.31 (95% CI, 1.20-1.44); second quartile, OR 1.18 (95% CI, 1.09-1.29); and third quartile, OR 1.14 (95% CI, 1.05-1.24). Long-term mortality beyond 6 months was also higher in low-volume hospitals: 5 or less cases year, hazard ratio (HR) 1.11 (95% CI, 1.06-1.18); 6 to 10 cases per year, OR 1.06 (95% CI, 1.02-1.10) compared with hospitals performing more than 40 cases per year. CONCLUSIONS: Most hospitals perform few mitral valve operations on elderly patients. Greater volume of mitral procedures was associated with higher repair rates. Both greater volume of mitral procedures and increasing mitral repair rates were associated with decreased mortality.

Long-term outcomes of mitral valve repair versus replacement for degenerative disease: a systematic review.

The short-term advantage of mitral valve repair versus replacement for degenerative disease has been extensively documented. These advantages include lower operative mortality, improved survival, better preservation of leftventricular function, shorter post-operative hospital stay, lower total costs, and fewer valve-related complications, including thromboembolism, anticoagulation-related bleeding events and late prosthetic dysfunction. More recent written data are available indicating the long-term advantage of repair versus replacement. While at some institutions, the repair rate for degenerative disease may exceed 90%, the national average in 2007 was only 69%. Making direct comparisons between mitral valve repair and replacement using the available studies does present some challenges however, as there are often differences in baseline characteristics between patient groups as well as other dissimilarities between studies. The purpose of this review is to systematically summarize the long-term survival and reoperation data of mitral valve repair versus replacement for degenerative disease. A PubMed search was done and resulted in 12 studies that met our study criteria for comparing mitral valve repair versus replacement for degenerative disease. A systematic review was then conducted abstracting survival and reoperation data.