Addressing Weight Bias in Reproductive Medicine: A Call to Revisit BMI Restrictions for In Vitro Fertilization.

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 two to threefold increase in infertility, largely due to anovulation, and is associated with a lower rate of pregnancy with ovulation induction among anovulatory women. As a result of these trends and associations, 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 embryos transfers in patients with obesity undergoing IVF. We encourage IVF medical directors to revisit BMI restrictions for IVF in favor of individualized patient risk assessments in order to minimize weight bias and provide timely access to safe and effective IVF care for patients with obesity and infertility.

Insurance-Based Disparities in Outcomes and ECMO Utilization for Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to examine insurance-based disparities in mortality, non-home discharges, and ECMO 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, non-home discharge, and ECMO 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 (0-5.0%; 5.1-10%, 10.1-20%, 20.1-30%, 30.1%-) was evaluated. Modelling 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 non-home discharges, 75,703 were mechanically ventilated, and 2,642 underwent ECMO. The adjusted odds of death were higher in patients with Medicare (aOR 1.28; [95% CI: 1.21, 1.35]; P<0.0005), dually enrolled (aOR, 1.39; [1.30, 1.50]; P<0.0005), Medicaid (aOR, 1.28; [1.20, 1.36]; P<0.0005), and no insurance (aOR, 1.43; [1.26, 1.62]; P<0.0005) compared to patients with private insurance. Patients with Medicare (aOR, 0.47; [CI: 0.39, 0.58]; P <0.0005), dually enrolled (aOR, 0.32; [0.24, 0.43]; P<0.0005), Medicaid (aOR, 0.70; [ 0.62, 0.79]; P<0.0005), and no insurance (aOR, 0.40; [0.29, 0.56]; P<0.001] were less likely to be placed on ECMO than patients with private insurance. Mortality, non-home discharges, and ECMO utilization did not change significantly more in patients with private insurance compared to patients without private insurance as the COVID-19 burden increased. CONCLUSION: Among patients with COVID-19, insurance-based disparities in mortality, non-home discharges, and ECMO utilization were substantial, but these disparities did not increase as the hospital COVID-19 burden 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 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.

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 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 Physician Quality Score in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System and Hospital Performance in Hospital Compare in the First Year of the Program.

Importance: The scientific validity of the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) quality score as a measure of hospital-level patient outcomes is unknown. Objective: To examine whether better physician performance on the MIPS quality score is associated with better hospital outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of 38 830 physicians used data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Physician Compare (2017) merged with CMS Hospital Compare data. Data analysis was conducted from September to November 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Linear regression was used to examine the association between physician MIPS quality scores aggregated at the hospital level and hospitalwide measures of (1) postoperative complications, (2) failure to rescue, (3) individual postoperative complications, and (4) readmissions. Results: The study cohort of 38 830 clinicians (5198 [14.6%] women; 12 103 [31.6%] with 11-20 years in practice) included 6580 (17.2%) general surgeons, 8978 (23.4%) orthopedic surgeons, 1617 (4.2%) vascular surgeons, 582 (1.5%) cardiac surgeons, 904 (2.4%) thoracic surgeons, 18 149 (47.4%) anesthesiologists, and 1520 (4.0%) intensivists at 3055 hospitals. The MIPS quality score was not associated with the hospital composite rate of postoperative complications. MIPS quality scores for vascular surgeons in the 11th to 25th percentile, compared with those in the 51st to 100th percentile, were associated with a 0.55-percentage point higher hospital rate of failure to rescue (95% CI, 0.06-1.04 percentage points; P = .03). MIPS quality scores for cardiac surgeons in the 1st to 10th percentile, compared with those in the 51st to 100th percentile, were associated with a 0.41-percentage point higher hospital coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) mortality rate (95% CI, 0.10-0.71 percentage points; P = .01). MIPS quality scores for cardiac surgeons in the 1st to 10th percentile and 11th to 25th percentile, compared with those in the 51st to 100th percentile, were associated with 0.65-percentage point (95% CI, 0.013-1.16 percentage points; P = .02) and 0.48-percentage point (95% CI, 0.07-0.90 percentage points; P = .02) higher hospital CABG readmission rates, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, better performance on the physician MIPS quality score was associated with better hospital surgical outcomes for some physician specialties during the first year of MIPS.

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 medicaid expansion on disparities in revascularization in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction.

INTRODUCTION: Blacks are more likely to live in poverty and be uninsured, and are less likely to undergo revascularization after am acute myocardial infarction compared to whites. The objective of this study was to determine whether Medicaid expansion was associated with a reduction in revascularization disparities in patients admitted with an acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: Retrospective analysis study using data (2010-2018) from hospitals participating in the University Health Systems Consortium, now renamed the Vizient Clinical Database. Comparative interrupted time series analysis was used to compare changes in the use of revascularization therapies (PCI and CABG) in white versus non-Hispanic black patients hospitalized with either ST-segment elevation (STEMI) or non-ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarctions (NSTEMI) after Medicaid expansion. RESULTS: The analytic cohort included 68,610 STEMI and 127,378 NSTEMI patients. The percentage point decrease in the uninsured rate for STEMIs and NSTEMIs was greater for blacks in expansion states compared to whites in expansion states. For patients with STEMIs, differences in black versus white revascularization rates decreased by 2.09 percentage points per year (95% CI, 0.29-3.88, P = 0.023) in expansion versus non-expansion states after adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. Black patients hospitalized with STEMI in non-expansion states experienced a 7.24 percentage point increase in revascularization rate in 2014 (95% CI, 2.83-11.7, P < 0.001) but did not experience significant annual percentage point increases in the rate of revascularization in subsequent years (1.52; 95% CI, -0.51-3.55, P = 0.14) compared to whites in non-expansion states. Medicaid expansion was not associated with changes in the revascularization rate for either blacks or whites hospitalized with NSTEMIs. CONCLUSION: Medicaid expansion was associated with greater reductions in the number of uninsured blacks compared to uninsured whites. Medicaid expansion was not associated, however, with a reduction in revascularization disparities between black and white patients admitted with acute myocardial infarctions.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hospital readmission after noncardiac surgery: the role of major complications.

IMPORTANCE: Hospital readmissions are believed to be an indicator of suboptimal care and are the focus of efforts by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to reduce health care cost and improve quality. Strategies to reduce surgical readmissions may be most effective if applied prospectively to patients who are at increased risk for readmission. Hospitals do not currently have the means to identify surgical patients who are at high risk for unplanned rehospitalizations. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS NSQIP) predicted risk of major complications can be used to identify surgical patients at risk for rehospitalization. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of 142,232 admissions in the ACS NSQIP registry for major noncardiac surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The association between unplanned 30-day readmission and the ACS NSQIP predicted risk of major complications, controlling for severity of disease and surgical complexity. RESULTS: Of the 143,232 patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, 6.8% had unplanned 30-day readmissions. The rate of unplanned 30-day readmissions was 78.3% for patients with any postdischarge complication, compared with 12.3% for patients with only in-hospital complications and 4.8% for patients without any complications. Patients at very high risk for major complications (predicted risk of ACS NSQIP complication >10%) had 10-fold higher odds of readmission compared with patients at very low risk for complications (adjusted odds ratio = 10.35; 95% CI, 9.16-11.70), whereas patients at high (adjusted odds ratio = 6.57; 95% CI, 5.89-7.34) and moderate (adjusted odds ratio = 3.96; 95% CI, 3.57-4.39) risk of complications had 7- and 4-fold higher odds of readmission, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Unplanned readmissions in surgical patients are common in patients experiencing postoperative complications and can be predicted using the ACS NSQIP risk of major complications. Prospective identification of high-risk patients, using the NSQIP complication risk index, may allow hospitals to reduce unplanned rehospitalizations.

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.