Outcomes after bioprosthetic versus mechanical mitral valve replacement for infective endocarditis in the United States.

Objective: In patients who underwent mitral valve replacement for infectious endocarditis, we evaluated the association of prosthesis choice with readmission rates and causes (the primary outcomes), as well as with in-hospital mortality, cost, and length of stay (the secondary outcomes). Methods: Patients with infectious endocarditis who underwent isolated mitral valve replacement from January 2016 to December 2018 were identified in the United States Nationwide Readmissions Database and stratified by valve type. Propensity score matching was used to compare adjusted outcomes. Results: A weighted total of 4206 patients with infectious endocarditis underwent bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement (n = 3132) and mechanical mitral valve replacement (n = 1074) during the study period. Patients in the bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement group were older than those in the mechanical mitral valve replacement group (median 57 vs 46 y, P < .001). After propensity matching, the bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement group (n = 1068) had similar in-hospital mortality, length of stay, and costs compared with the mechanical mitral valve replacement group (n = 1056). Overall, 90-day readmission rates were high (28.9%) and comparable for bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement (30.5%) and mechanical mitral valve replacement (27.5%, P = .4). Likewise, there was no difference in readmissions over a calendar year by prosthesis type. Readmissions for infection and bleeding were common for both bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement and mechanical mitral valve replacement groups. Conclusions: Outcomes and readmission rates were similar for mechanical mitral valve replacement and bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement in infectious endocarditis, suggesting that valve choice should not be determined by endocarditis status. Additionally, strategies to mitigate readmission for infection and bleeding are needed for both groups.

Safety of Early Discharge After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Nationwide Readmissions Analysis.

BACKGROUND: We determined the safety of early discharge after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with uncomplicated postoperative courses and compared outcomes with routine discharge in a national cohort. We identified preoperative factors associated with readmission after early discharge after CABG. METHODS: The Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried to identify patients undergoing CABG from January 2016 to December 2018. Patients were stratified based on length of stay (LOS) as early (≤4 days) vs routine (5-10 days) discharge. Patients were excluded with hospital courses indicative of complicated stays (emergent procedures, LOS >10 days, discharge to extended care facility or with home health, index hospitalization mortality). Propensity score matching was performed to compare outcomes between cohorts. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with readmission after early discharge. RESULTS: During the study period, 91,861 patients underwent CABG with an uncomplicated postoperative course (∼20% of CABG population). Of these, 31% (28,790 of 91,861) were discharged early, and 69% (63,071 of 91,861) were routinely discharged. After propensity score matching, patients discharged early had lower readmission rates at 30 days, 90 days, and up to 1 year (P < .001 for all). The index hospitalization cost was lower with early discharge ($26,676 vs $32,859; P < .001). Early discharge was associated with a lower incidence of nosocomial infection at the index hospitalization (0.17% vs 0.81%, P < .001) and readmission from infection (14.5% vs 18%, P = .016). CONCLUSIONS: Early discharge after uncomplicated CABG can be considered in a highly selective patient population. Early-discharge patients are readmitted less frequently than matched routine-discharge patients, with a lower incidence of readmission from infection. Appropriate postdischarge processes to facilitate early discharge after CABG should be further pursued.

Socioeconomic disparities in procedural choice and outcomes after aortic valve replacement.

Objective: To identify potential socioeconomic disparities in the procedural choice of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and in readmission outcomes after SAVR or TAVR. Methods: The Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried to identify a total of 243,691 patients who underwent isolated SAVR and TAVR between January 2016 and December 2018. Patients were stratified according to a tiered socioeconomic status (SES) metric comprising patient factors including education, literacy, housing, employment, insurance status, and neighborhood median income. Multivariable analyses were used to assess the effect of SES on procedural choice and risk-adjusted readmission outcomes. Results: SAVR (41.4%; 100,833 of 243,619) was performed less frequently than TAVR (58.6%; 142,786 of 243,619). Lower SES was more frequent among patients undergoing SAVR (20.2% [20,379 of 100,833] vs 19.4% [27,791 of 142,786]; P < .001). Along with such variables as small hospital size, drug abuse, arrhythmia, and obesity, lower SES was independently associated with SAVR relative to TAVR (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11 to 1.24). After SAVR, but not after TAVR, lower SES was independently associated with increased readmission at 30 days (aOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.32), 90 days (aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.15-1.41), and 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.28; P < .05 for all). Conclusions: Our study findings indicate that socioeconomic disparities exist in the procedural choice for patients undergoing AVR. Patients with lower SES had increased odds of undergoing SAVR, as well as increased odds of readmission after SAVR, but not after TAVR, supporting that health inequities exist in the surgical care of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients.

Influence of concomitant ablation of nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation during coronary artery bypass grafting on mortality and readmissions.

Objective: We determined the utilization rate of surgical ablation (SA) during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and compared outcomes between CABG with or without SA in a national cohort. Methods: The January 2016 to December 2018 Nationwide Readmissions Database was searched for all patients undergoing isolated CABG with preoperative persistent or chronic atrial fibrillation by using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision classification. Propensity score matching and multivariate logistic regressions were performed to compare outcomes, and Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess risk factors for 1-year readmission. Results: Of 18,899 patients undergoing CABG with nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation, 78% (n = 14,776) underwent CABG alone and 22% (n = 4123) underwent CABG with SA. In the propensity score-matched cohort (n = 8116), CABG with SA (n = 4054) (vs CABG alone [n = 4112]) was not associated with increased in-hospital mortality (3.4% [139 out of 4112] vs 3.9% [159 ut of 4054]; P = .4), index-hospitalization length of stay (10 days vs 10 days; P = .3), 30-day readmission (19.1% [693 out of 3362] vs 17.2% [609 out of 3537]; P = .2), or 90-day readmission (28.9% [840 out of 2911] vs 26.2% [752 out of 2875]; P = .1). Index hospitalization costs were significantly higher for those undergoing SA ($52,556 vs $47,433; P < .001). Rates of readmission at 300 days were similar between patients receiving SA (43.8%) and no SA (42.8%; log-rank P = .3). The 3 most common causes of readmission were not different between groups and included heart failure (24.3% [594 out of 2444]; P = .6), infection (16.8% [411 out of 2444]; P = .5), and arrhythmia (11.7% [286 out of 2444]; P = .2). Conclusions: In patients with nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation, utilization of SA during CABG remains low. SA during CABG did not adversely influence mortality or short-term readmissions. These findings support increased use of SA during CABG.