Insurance-based Disparities in Outcomes and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Utilization for Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to examine insurance-based disparities in mortality, nonhome discharges, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation utilization in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. METHODS: Using a national database of U.S. academic medical centers and their affiliated hospitals, the risk-adjusted association between mortality, nonhome discharge, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation utilization and (1) the type of insurance coverage (private insurance, Medicare, dual enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid, and no insurance) and (2) the weekly hospital COVID-19 burden (0 to 5.0%; 5.1 to 10%, 10.1 to 20%, 20.1 to 30%, and 30.1% and greater) was evaluated. Modeling was expanded to include an interaction between payer status and the weekly hospital COVID-19 burden to examine whether the lack of private insurance was associated with increases in disparities as the COVID-19 burden increased. RESULTS: Among 760,846 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 214,992 had private insurance, 318,624 had Medicare, 96,192 were dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid, 107,548 had Medicaid, and 23,560 had no insurance. Overall, 76,250 died, 211,702 had nonhome discharges, 75,703 were mechanically ventilated, and 2,642 underwent extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. The adjusted odds of death were higher in patients with Medicare (adjusted odds ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.21 to 1.35]; P < 0.0005), dually enrolled (adjusted odds ratio, 1.39 [95% CI, 1.30 to 1.50]; P < 0.0005), Medicaid (adjusted odds ratio, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.20 to 1.36]; P < 0.0005), and no insurance (adjusted odds ratio, 1.43 [95% CI, 1.26 to 1.62]; P < 0.0005) compared to patients with private insurance. Patients with Medicare (adjusted odds ratio, 0.47; [95% CI, 0.39 to 0.58]; P < 0.0005), dually enrolled (adjusted odds ratio, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.24 to 0.43]; P < 0.0005), Medicaid (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.62 to 0.79]; P < 0.0005), and no insurance (adjusted odds ratio, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.29 to 0.56]; P < 0.001) were less likely to be placed on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation than patients with private insurance. Mortality, nonhome discharges, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation utilization did not change significantly more in patients with private insurance compared to patients without private insurance as the COVID-19 burden increased. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with COVID-19, insurance-based disparities in mortality, nonhome discharges, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation utilization were substantial, but these disparities did not increase as the hospital COVID-19 burden increased.

Levels of Evidence Supporting the North American and European Perioperative Care Guidelines for Anesthesiologists between 2010 and 2020: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Although there are thousands of published recommendations in anesthesiology clinical practice guidelines, the extent to which these are supported by high levels of evidence is not known. This study hypothesized that most recommendations in clinical practice guidelines are supported by a low level of evidence. METHODS: A registered (Prospero CRD42020202932) systematic review was conducted of anesthesia evidence-based recommendations from the major North American and European anesthesiology societies between January 2010 and September 2020 in PubMed and EMBASE. The level of evidence A, B, or C and the strength of recommendation (strong or weak) for each recommendation was mapped using the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association classification system or the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The outcome of interest was the proportion of recommendations supported by levels of evidence A, B, and C. Changes in the level of evidence over time were examined. Risk of bias was assessed using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. RESULTS: In total, 60 guidelines comprising 2,280 recommendations were reviewed. Level of evidence A supported 16% (363 of 2,280) of total recommendations and 19% (288 of 1,506) of strong recommendations. Level of evidence C supported 51% (1,160 of 2,280) of all recommendations and 50% (756 of 1,506) of strong recommendations. Of all the guidelines, 73% (44 of 60) had a low risk of bias. The proportion of recommendations supported by level of evidence A versus level of evidence C (relative risk ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.18 to 4.74; P = 0.933) or level of evidence B versus level of evidence C (relative risk ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.72 to 3.72; P = 0.243) did not increase in guidelines that were revised. Year of publication was also not associated with increases in the proportion of recommendations supported by level of evidence A (relative risk ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.23; P = 0.340) or level of evidence B (relative risk ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.96 to 1.15; P = 0.283) compared to level of evidence C. CONCLUSIONS: Half of the recommendations in anesthesiology clinical practice guidelines are based on a low level of evidence, and this did not change over time. These findings highlight the need for additional efforts to increase the quality of evidence used to guide decision-making in anesthesiology.

Impact of the Choice of Risk Model for Identifying Low-risk Patients Using the 2014 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Perioperative Guidelines.

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: BACKGROUND:: The 2014 American College of Cardiology Perioperative Guideline recommends risk stratifying patients scheduled to undergo noncardiac surgery using either: (1) the Revised Cardiac Index; (2) the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator; or (3) the Myocardial Infarction or Cardiac Arrest calculator. The aim of this study is to determine how often these three risk-prediction tools agree on the classification of patients as low risk (less than 1%) of major adverse cardiac event. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study using a sample of 10,000 patient records. The risk of cardiac complications was calculated for the Revised Cardiac Index and the Myocardial Infarction or Cardiac Arrest models using published coefficients, and for the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator using the publicly available website. The authors used the intraclass correlation coefficient and kappa analysis to quantify the degree of agreement between these three risk-prediction tools. RESULTS: There is good agreement between the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and Myocardial Infarction or Cardiac Arrest estimates of major adverse cardiac events (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.70), while only poor agreement between (1) American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator and the Revised Cardiac Index (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.37; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.40), and (2) Myocardial Infarction or Cardiac Arrest and Revised Cardiac Index (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.26; 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.30). The three prediction models disagreed 29% of the time on which patients were low risk. CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variability in the predicted risk of cardiac complications using different risk-prediction tools. Including more than one prediction tool in clinical guidelines could lead to differences in decision-making for some patients depending on which risk calculator is used.

Variability in Case Durations for Common Surgical Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Under the Merit-based Incentive Payment System, physician payment will be adjusted using a composite performance score that has 4 components, one of which is resource use. The objective of this exploratory study is to quantify the facility-level variation in surgical case duration for common surgeries to examine the feasibility of using surgical case duration as a performance metric. METHODS: We used data from the National Anesthesia Clinical Outcomes Registry on 404,987 adult patients undergoing one of 6 general surgical or orthopedic procedures: laparoscopic appendectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative cholangiogram, knee arthroscopy, laminectomy, and total hip replacement. We constructed separate mixed-effects multivariable time-to-event models (survival analysis) for each of the 6 procedures to model surgical case duration. RESULTS: We identified performance outliers, based on surgical case duration, using 2013 data and then quantified the gap between high- and low-performance outliers using 2014 data. After adjusting for patient risk, patients undergoing surgery at high-performance facilities were between 54% and 79% more likely to exit the operating room (OR) per unit time compared to average-performing facilities, depending on the procedure. For example, patients undergoing a laparoscopic appendectomy at high-performance facilities were 68% more likely to exit the OR per unit time (hazard ratio, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.40-2.02; P < .001) compared to average-performing facilities. Patients undergoing a laparoscopic appendectomy at low-performance facilities were 41% less likely to exit the OR per unit time (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-0.74; P < .001) compared to average-performing facilities. The adjusted median surgical case duration for patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy was 69 minutes at high-performance centers and 92 minutes at low-performance centers. Similar results were obtained for the other procedures. CONCLUSIONS: There was wide variation in surgery case duration for patients undergoing common general surgical and orthopedic surgeries. This variability in care delivery may represent an important opportunity to promote more efficient use of health care resources.

Outcomes are Worse in US Patients Undergoing Surgery on Weekends Compared With Weekdays.

BACKGROUND: Increasing surgical access to previously underserved populations in the United States may require a major expansion of the use of operating rooms on weekends to take advantage of unused capacity. Although the so-called weekend effect for surgery has been described in other countries, it is unknown whether US patients undergoing moderate-to-high risk surgery on weekends are more likely to experience worse outcomes than patients undergoing surgery on weekdays. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether patients undergoing surgery on weekends are more likely to die or experience a major complication compared with patients undergoing surgery on a weekday. RESEARCH DESIGN: Using all-payer data, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of 305,853 patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery, colorectal surgery, open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm, endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm, and lower extremity revascularization. We compared in-hospital mortality and major complications for weekday versus weekend surgery using multivariable logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: After controlling for patient risk and surgery type, weekend elective surgery [adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=3.18; 95% confidence interval (CI), 2.26-4.49; P<0.001] and weekend urgent surgery (AOR=2.11; 95% CI, 1.68-2.66; P<0.001) were associated with a higher risk of death compared with weekday surgery. Weekend elective (AOR=1.58; 95% CI, 1.29-1.93; P<0.001) and weekend urgent surgery (AOR=1.61; 95% CI, 1.42-1.82; P<0.001) were also associated with a higher risk of major complications compared with weekday surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing nonemergent major cardiac and noncardiac surgery on the weekends have a clinically significantly increased risk of death and major complications compared with patients undergoing surgery on weekdays. These findings should prompt decision makers to seek to better understand factors, such physician and nurse staffing, which may contribute to the weekend effect.

Feasibility of Report Cards for Measuring Anesthesiologist Quality for Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: In creating the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System, Congress has mandated pay-for-performance (P4P) for all physicians, including anesthesiologists. There are currently no National Quality Forum-endorsed risk-adjusted outcome metrics for anesthesiologists to use as the basis for P4P. METHODS: Using clinical data from the New York State Cardiac Surgery Reporting System, we conducted a retrospective observational study of 55,436 patients undergoing cardiac surgery between 2009 and 2012. Hierarchical logistic regression modeling was used to examine the variation in in-hospital mortality or major complications (Q-wave myocardial infarction, renal failure, stroke, and respiratory failure) among anesthesiologists, controlling for patient demographics, severity of disease, comorbidities, and hospital quality. RESULTS: Although the variation in performance among anesthesiologists was statistically significant (P = 0.025), none of the anesthesiologists in the sample was classified as a high- or low-performance outliers. The contribution of anesthesiologists to outcomes represented 0.51% of the overall variability in patient outcomes (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.0051; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.002-0.014), whereas the contribution of hospitals to patient outcomes was 2.90% (ICC = 0.029; 95% CI, 0.017-0.050). The anesthesiologist median odds ratio (MOR) was 1.13 (95% CI, 1.08-1.24), suggesting that the variation between anesthesiologist was modest, whereas the hospital MOR was 1.35 (95% CI, 1.25-1.48). In a separate analysis, the contribution of surgeons to overall outcomes represented 1.76% of the overall variability in patient outcomes (ICC = 0.018, 95% CI, 0.010-0.031), and the surgeon MOR was 1.26 (95% CI, 1.19-1.37). Twelve of the surgeons were identified as performance outliers. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of anesthesiologists on the total variability in cardiac surgical outcomes was probably about one-fourth as large as the surgeons' contribution. None of the anesthesiologists caring for cardiac surgical patients in New York State over a 3+ year period were identified as performance outliers. The use of a performance metric based on death or major complications for P4P may not be feasible for cardiac anesthesiologists.

The impact of anesthesiologists on coronary artery bypass graft surgery outcomes.

BACKGROUND: One of every 150 hospitalized patients experiences a lethal adverse event; nearly half of these events involves surgical patients. Although variations in surgeon performance and quality have been reported in the literature, less is known about the influence of anesthesiologists on outcomes after major surgery. Our goal of this study was to determine whether there is significant variation in outcomes between anesthesiologists after controlling for patient case mix and hospital quality. METHODS: Using clinical data from the New York State Cardiac Surgery Reporting System, we conducted a retrospective observational study of 7920 patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to examine the variation in death or major complications (Q-wave myocardial infarction, renal failure, stroke) across anesthesiologists, controlling for patient demographics, severity of disease, comorbidities, and hospital quality. RESULTS: Anesthesiologist performance was quantified using fixed-effects modeling. The variability across anesthesiologists was highly significant (P < 0.001). Patients managed by low-performance anesthesiologists (corresponding to the 25th percentile of the distribution of anesthesiologist risk-adjusted outcomes) experienced nearly twice the rate of death or serious complications (adjusted rate 3.33%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.09%-3.58%) as patients managed by high-performance anesthesiologists (corresponding to the 75th percentile) (adjusted rate 1.82%; 95% CI, 1.58%-2.10%). This performance gap was observed across all patient risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of death or major complications among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery varies markedly across anesthesiologists. These findings suggest that there may be opportunities to improve perioperative management to improve outcomes among high-risk surgical patients.

Preoperative thrombocytopenia and postoperative outcomes after noncardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Most studies examining the prognostic value of preoperative coagulation testing are too small to examine the predictive value of routine preoperative coagulation testing in patients having noncardiac surgery. METHODS: Using data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement database, the authors performed a retrospective observational study on 316,644 patients having noncardiac surgery who did not have clinical indications for preoperative coagulation testing. The authors used multivariable logistic regression analysis to explore the association between platelet count abnormalities and red cell transfusion, mortality, and major complications. RESULTS: Thrombocytopenia or thrombocytosis occurred in 1 in 14 patients without clinical indications for preoperative platelet testing. Patients with mild thrombocytopenia (101,000-150,000 µl), moderate-to-severe thrombocytopenia (<100,000 µl), and thrombocytosis (≥450,000 µl) were significantly more likely to be transfused (7.3%, 11.8%, 8.9%, 3.1%) and had significantly higher 30-day mortality rates (1.5%, 2.6%, 0.9%, 0.5%) compared with patients with a normal platelet count. In the multivariable analyses, mild thrombocytopenia (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.18-1.39) and moderate-to-severe thrombocytopenia (AOR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.49-2.08), and thrombocytosis (AOR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.30-1.60) were associated with increased risk of blood transfusion. Mild thrombocytopenia (AOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.11-1.56) and moderate-to-severe thrombocytopenia (AOR, 1.93; 95% CI, 1.43-2.61) were also associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality, whereas thrombocytosis was not (AOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.72-1.22). CONCLUSION: Platelet count abnormalities found in the course of routine preoperative screening are associated with a higher risk of blood transfusion and death.

Racial disparities in the use of blood transfusion in major surgery.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in healthcare in the United States are widespread and have been well documented. However, it is unknown whether racial disparities exist in the use of blood transfusion for patients undergoing major surgery. METHODS: We used the University HealthSystem Consortium database (2009-2011) to examine racial disparities in perioperative red blood cells (RBCs) transfusion in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG), total hip replacement (THR), and colectomy. We estimated multivariable logistic regressions to examine whether black patients are more likely than white patients to receive perioperative RBC transfusion, and to investigate potential sources of racial disparities. RESULTS: After adjusting for patient-level factors, black patients were more likely to receive RBC transfusions for CABG (AOR = 1.41, 95% CI: [1.13, 1.76], p = 0.002) and THR (AOR = 1.39, 95% CI: [1.20, 1.62], p < 0.001), but not for colectomy (AOR = 1.08, 95% CI: [0.90, 1.30], p = 0.40). Black-white disparities in blood transfusion persisted after controlling for patient insurance and hospital effects (CABG: AOR = 1.42, 95% CI: [1.30, 1.56], p < 0.001; THR: AOR = 1.43, 95% CI: [1.29, 1.58], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We detected racial disparities in the use of blood transfusion for CABG and THR (black patients tended to receive more transfusions compared with whites), but not for colectomy. Reporting racial disparities in contemporary transfusion practices may help reduce potentially unnecessary blood transfusions in minority patients.

Addressing weight bias in reproductive medicine: a call to revisit body mass index restrictions for in vitro fertilization treatment.

The prevalence of obesity has doubled among reproductive-age adults in the US over the past 40 years and is projected to impact half of the population by 2030. Obesity is associated with a twofold to threefold increase in infertility, largely because of anovulation, and is associated with a lower rate of pregnancy with ovulation induction among anovulatory women. As a result of these trends and associations, in vitro fertilization (IVF) care will need to be adapted to provide safe, effective, and equitable access for patients with obesity. Research over the past 10 years has demonstrated safe sedation practices and effective procedure modifications for oocyte retrievals and embryo transfers in patients with obesity undergoing IVF treatment. We encourage IVF medical directors to revisit body mass index restrictions for IVF treatment in favor of individualized patient risk assessments to minimize weight bias and provide timely access to safe and effective IVF care for patients with obesity and infertility.

Variation of blood transfusion in patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the hospital variability in use of red blood cells (RBCs), fresh-frozen plasma (FFP), and platelet transfusions in patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery. BACKGROUND: Blood transfusion is commonly used in surgical procedures in the United States. Little is known about the hospital variability in perioperative transfusion rates for noncardiac surgery. METHODS: We used the University HealthSystem Consortium database (2006-2010) to examine hospital variability in use of allogeneic RBC, FFP, and platelet transfusions in patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery. We used regression-based techniques to quantify the variability in hospital transfusion practices and to study the association between hospital characteristics and the likelihood of transfusion. RESULTS: After adjusting for patient risk factors, hospital transfusion rates varied widely for patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR), colectomy, and pancreaticoduodenectomy. Compared with patients undergoing THR in average-transfusion hospitals, patients treated in high-transfusion hospitals have a greater than twofold higher odds of being transfused with RBCs [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 2.41; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.89-3.09], FFP (AOR = 2.81; 95% CI, 2.02-3.91), and platelets (AOR = 2.52; 95% CI, 1.95-3.25), whereas patients in low-transfusion hospitals have an approximately 50% lower odds of receiving RBCs (AOR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.35-0.57), FFP (AOR = 0.37; 95% CI, 0.27-0.51), and platelets (AOR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.29-0.62). Similar results were obtained for colectomy and pancreaticoduodenectomy. CONCLUSIONS: There was dramatic hospital variability in perioperative transfusion rates among patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery at academic medical centers. In light of the potential complications of transfusion therapy, reducing this variability in hospital transfusion practices may result in improved surgical outcomes.

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Associated Inequities in Acute Myocardial Infarction Treatment and Outcomes.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted usual care for emergent conditions, such as acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Understanding whether Black and Hispanic individuals experiencing AMI had greater increases in poor outcomes compared with White individuals during the pandemic has important equity implications. Objective: To investigate whether the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased disparities in treatment and outcomes among Medicare patients hospitalized with AMI. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used Medicare data for patients hospitalized with AMI between January 2016 and November 2020. Patients were categorized as Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic White. The association between race and ethnicity and outcomes as a function of the proportion of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was evaluated using interrupted time series. Data were analyzed from October 2022 to June 2023. Exposure: The main exposure was a hospital's proportion of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 on a weekly basis as a proxy for care disruption during the pandemic. Main Outcomes and Measures: Revascularization, 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission, and nonhome discharges. Results: A total of 1 319 273 admissions for AMI (579 817 females [44.0%]; 122 972 Black [9.3%], 117 668 Hispanic [8.9%], and 1 078 633 White [81.8%]; mean [SD] age, 77 [8.4] years) were included. For patients with non-ST segment elevation MI (NSTEMI) overall, the adjusted odds of mortality and nonhome discharges increased by 51% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.51; 95% CI, 1.29-1.76; P < .001) and 32% (aOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.15-1.52; P < .001), respectively, and the odds of revascularization decreased by 27% (aOR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.64-0.83; P < .001) among patients hospitalized during weeks with a high hospital COVID-19 burden (>30%) vs patients hospitalized prior to the pandemic. Black individuals with NSTEMI experienced a clinically insignificant 7% greater increase in the odds of mortality (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.00-1.15; P = .04) for each 10% increase in the COVID-19 hospital burden but no increases in readmissions or nonhome discharges or reductions in revascularization rates compared with White individuals. There were no differential increases in adverse outcomes among Hispanic compared with White patients with NSTEMI based on hospital COVID-19 burden. Increases in hospital COVID-19 burden were not associated with changes in outcomes or the use of revascularization in STEMI overall or by racial or ethnic group. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that while hospital COVID-19 burden was associated with worse treatment and outcomes for NSTEMI, race and ethnicity-associated inequities did not increase significantly during the pandemic. These findings suggest the need for additional efforts to mitigate outcomes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic for patients admitted with AMI when the hospital COVID-19 burden is substantially increased.

Was COVID-19 Associated With Worsening Inequities in Stroke Treatment and Outcomes?

Background COVID-19 stressed hospitals and may have disproportionately affected the stroke outcomes and treatment of Black and Hispanic individuals. Methods and Results This retrospective study used 100% Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file data from between 2016 and 2020. We used interrupted time series analyses to examine whether the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated disparities in stroke outcomes and reperfusion therapy. Among 1 142 560 hospitalizations for acute ischemic strokes, 90 912 (8.0%) were Hispanic individuals; 162 752 (14.2%) were non-Hispanic Black individuals; and 888 896 (77.8%) were non-Hispanic White individuals. The adjusted odds of mortality increased by 51% (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.51 [95% CI, 1.34-1.69]; P<0.001), whereas the rates of nonhome discharges decreased by 11% (aOR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.82-0.96]; P=0.003) for patients hospitalized during weeks when the hospital's proportion of patients with COVID-19 was >30%. The overall rates of motor deficits (P=0.25) did not increase, and the rates of reperfusion therapy did not decrease as the weekly COVID-19 burden increased. Black patients had lower 30-day mortality (aOR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.69-0.72]; P<0.001) but higher rates of motor deficits (aOR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.12-1.16]; P<0.001) than White individuals. Hispanic patients had lower 30-day mortality and similar rates of motor deficits compared with White individuals. There was no differential increase in adverse outcomes or reduction in reperfusion therapy among Black and Hispanic individuals compared with White individuals as the weekly COVID-19 burden increased. Conclusions This national study of Medicare patients found no evidence that the hospital COVID-19 burden exacerbated disparities in treatment and outcomes for Black and Hispanic individuals admitted with an acute ischemic stroke.

The Surgical Mortality Probability Model: derivation and validation of a simple risk prediction rule for noncardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a 30-day mortality risk index for noncardiac surgery that can be used to communicate risk information to patients and guide clinical management at the "point-of-care," and that can be used by surgeons and hospitals to internally audit their quality of care. BACKGROUND: Clinicians rely on the Revised Cardiac Risk Index to quantify the risk of cardiac complications in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Because mortality from noncardiac causes accounts for many perioperative deaths, there is also a need for a simple bedside risk index to predict 30-day all-cause mortality after noncardiac surgery. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of 298,772 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery during 2005 to 2007 using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. RESULTS: The 9-point S-MPM (Surgical Mortality Probability Model) 30-day mortality risk index was derived empirically and includes three risk factors: ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status, emergency status, and surgery risk class. Patients with ASA physical status I, II, III, IV or V were assigned either 0, 2, 4, 5, or 6 points, respectively; intermediate- or high-risk procedures were assigned 1 or 2 points, respectively; and emergency procedures were assigned 1 point. Patients with risk scores less than 5 had a predicted risk of mortality less than 0.50%, whereas patients with a risk score of 5 to 6 had a risk of mortality between 1.5% and 4.0%. Patients with a risk score greater than 6 had risk of mortality more than 10%. S-MPM exhibited excellent discrimination (C statistic, 0.897) and acceptable calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow statistic 13.0, P = 0.023) in the validation data set. CONCLUSIONS: Thirty-day mortality after noncardiac surgery can be accurately predicted using a simple and accurate risk score based on information readily available at the bedside. This risk index may play a useful role in facilitating shared decision making, developing and implementing risk-reduction strategies, and guiding quality improvement efforts.

Association Between the COVID-19 Pandemic and Disparities in Access to Major Surgery in the US.

Importance: Racial minority groups account for 70% of excess deaths not related to COVID-19. Understanding the association of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS's) moratorium delaying nonessential operations with racial disparities will help shape future pandemic responses. Objective: To evaluate the association of the CMS's moratorium on elective operations during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic among Black individuals, Asian individuals, and individuals of other races compared with White individuals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed a 719-hospital retrospective cohort of 3 470 905 adult inpatient hospitalizations for major surgery between January 1, 2018, and October 31, 2020. Exposure: The first wave of COVID-19 infections between March 1, 2020, and May 31, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the association between changes in monthly elective surgical case volumes and the first wave of COVID-19 infections as a function of patient race, evaluated using negative binomial regression analysis. Results: Among 3 470 905 adults (1 823 816 female [52.5%]) with inpatient hospitalizations for major surgery, 70 752 (2.0%) were Asian, 453 428 (13.1%) were Black, 2 696 929 (77.7%) were White, and 249 796 (7.2%) were individuals of other races. The number of monthly elective cases during the first wave was 49% (incident rate ratio [IRR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.486-0.492; P < .001) compared with the baseline period. The relative reduction in unadjusted elective surgery cases for Black (unadjusted IRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97-1.01; P = .36), Asian (unadjusted IRR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.14; P = .001), and other race individuals (unadjusted IRR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.95-1.00; P = .05) during the surge period compared with the baseline period was very close to the change in cases for White individuals. After adjustment for age, sex, comorbidities, and surgical procedure, there was still no evidence that the first wave of the pandemic was associated with disparities in access to elective surgery. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the CMS's moratorium on nonessential operations was associated with a 51% reduction in elective operations. It was not associated with greater reductions in operations for racial minority individuals than for White individuals. This evidence suggests that the early response to the pandemic did not increase disparities in access to surgical care.

Association Between the COVID-19 Pandemic and Insurance-Based Disparities in Mortality After Major Surgery Among US Adults.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions in surgical care. Whether these disruptions disproportionately impacted economically disadvantaged individuals is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and mortality after major surgery among patients with Medicaid insurance or without insurance compared with patients with commercial insurance. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Vizient Clinical Database for patients who underwent major surgery at hospitals in the US between January 1, 2018, and May 31, 2020. Exposures: The hospital proportion of patients with COVID-19 during the first wave of COVID-19 cases between March 1 and May 31, 2020, stratified as low (≤5.0%), medium (5.1%-10.0%), high (10.1%-25.0%), and very high (>25.0%). Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was inpatient mortality. The association between mortality after surgery and payer status as a function of the proportion of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was evaluated with a quasi-experimental triple-difference approach using logistic regression. Results: Among 2 950 147 adults undergoing inpatient surgery (1 550 752 female [52.6%]) at 677 hospitals, the primary payer was Medicare (1 427 791 [48.4%]), followed by commercial insurance (1 000 068 [33.9%]), Medicaid (321 600 [10.9%]), other payer (140 959 [4.8%]), and no insurance (59 729 [2.0%]). Mortality rates increased more for patients undergoing surgery during the first wave of the pandemic in hospitals with a high COVID-19 burden (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.03-1.24; P = .01) and a very high COVID-19 burden (AOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.24-1.53; P < .001) compared with patients in hospitals with a low COVID-19 burden. Overall, patients with Medicaid had 29% higher odds of death (AOR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.22-1.36; P < .001) and patients without insurance had 75% higher odds of death (AOR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.55-1.98; P < .001) compared with patients with commercial insurance. However, mortality rates for surgical patients with Medicaid insurance (AOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.82-1.30; P = .79) or without insurance (AOR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.47-1.54; P = .60) did not increase more than for patients with commercial insurance in hospitals with a high COVID-19 burden compared with hospitals with a low COVID-19 burden. These findings were similar in hospitals with very high COVID-19 burdens. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a higher risk of mortality after surgery in hospitals with more than 25.0% of patients with COVID-19. However, the pandemic was not associated with greater increases in mortality among patients with no insurance or patients with Medicaid compared with patients with commercial insurance in hospitals with a very high COVID-19 burden.

Association between Leapfrog safe practices score and hospital mortality in major surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Leapfrog Group reports on hospitals' adoption of the National Quality Forum Patient Safety Practices. However, it is unknown whether hospital compliance with these safe practices is associated with improved outcomes in patients undergoing major surgery. METHODS: We analyzed the association between hospital mortality and Leapfrog Safe Practices among patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (n=18,565), abdominal aortic aneurysm repair (n=2777), and hip replacement (n=25,067) in hospitals participating in the 2007 Leapfrog Hospital Survey using logistic regression. RESULTS: After adjusting for patient and hospital factors, we found that the total safety score (adjusted odds ratio: 1.000, 95% confidence interval: 0.999-1.001) was not associated with hospital mortality. Computerized physician order entry and ICU physician staffing were also not associated with hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence that patients undergoing major surgery at hospitals which scored higher on the Leapfrog Safe Practices Survey had lower mortality rates. The Leapfrog safe practices score as a standalone quality measure may have limited power to distinguish between high-quality and low-quality hospitals.