Trends in aortic dissection hospitalizations, interventions, and outcomes among medicare beneficiaries in the United States, 2000-2011.

BACKGROUND: The epidemiology of aortic dissection (AD) has not been well described among older persons in the United States. It is not known whether advancements in AD care over the last decade have been accompanied by changes in outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Inpatient Medicare data from 2000 to 2011 were used to determine trends in hospitalization rates for AD. Mortality rates were ascertained through corresponding vital status files. A total of 32 057 initial AD hospitalizations were identified. The overall hospitalization rate for AD remained unchanged at 10 per 100 000 person-years. For 30-day and 1-year mortality associated with AD, the observed rate decreased from 31.8% to 25.4% (difference, 6.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6.2-6.5; adjusted, 6.4%; 95% CI, 5.7-6.9) and from 42.6% to 37.4% (difference, 5.2%; 95% CI, 5.1-5.2; adjusted, 6.2%; 95% CI, 5.3-6.7), respectively. For patients undergoing surgical repair for type A dissections, the observed 30-day mortality decreased from 30.7% to 21.4% (difference, 9.3%; 95% CI, 8.3-10.2; adjusted, 7.3%; 95% CI, 5.8-7.8) and the observed 1-year mortality decreased from 39.9% to 31.6% (difference, 8.3%; 95% CI, 7.5-9.1%; adjusted, 8.2%; 95% CI, 6.7-9.1). The 30-day mortality decreased from 24.9% to 21% (difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, 3.5-4.2; adjusted, 2.9%; 95% CI, 0.7-4.4) and 1-year decreased from 36.4% to 32.5% (difference, 3.9%; 95% CI, 3.3-4.3; adjusted, 3.9%; 95% CI, 2.5-6.3) for surgical repair of type B dissection. CONCLUSIONS: Although AD hospitalization rates remained stable, improvement in mortality was noted, particularly in patients undergoing surgical repair.

Most important outcomes research papers on treatment of stable coronary artery disease.

The following are highlights from the new series, Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes Topic Review. This series will summarize the most important manuscripts, as selected by the Editor, that have been published in the Circulation portfolio. The objective of this series is to provide our readership with a timely, comprehensive selection of important papers that are relevant to the quality and outcomes, and general cardiology audience. The studies included in this article represent the most significant research related to treatment of stable coronary artery disease (CAD).

Spending more, doing more, or both? An alternative method for quantifying utilization during hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND: Because relative value unit (RVU)-based costs vary across hospitals, it is difficult to use them to compare hospital utilization. OBJECTIVE: To compare estimates of hospital utilization using RVU-based costs and standardized costs. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING AND PATIENTS: Years 2009 to 2010 heart failure hospitalizations in a large, detailed hospital billing database that contains an itemized log of costs incurred during hospitalization. INTERVENTION: We assigned every item in the database with a standardized cost that was consistent for that item across all hospitals. MEASUREMENTS: Standardized costs of hospitalization versus RVU-based costs of hospitalization. RESULTS: We identified 234 hospitals with 165,647 heart failure hospitalizations. We observed variation in the RVU-based cost for a uniform "basket of goods" (10th percentile cost $1,552; 90th percentile cost of $3,967). The interquartile ratio (Q75/Q25) of the RVU-based costs of a hospitalization was 1.35 but fell to 1.26 after costs were standardized, suggesting that the use of standardized costs can reduce the "noise" due to differences in overhead and other fixed costs. Forty-six (20%) hospitals had reported costs of hospitalizations exceeding standardized costs (indicating that reported costs inflated apparent utilization); 42 hospitals (17%) had reported costs that were less than standardized costs (indicating that reported costs underestimated utilization). CONCLUSIONS: Standardized costs are a novel method for comparing utilization across hospitals and reduce variation observed with RVU-based costs. They have the potential to help hospitals understand how they use resources compared to their peers and will facilitate research comparing the effectiveness of higher and lower utilization.

Most important outcomes research papers on hypertension.

The following are highlights from the new series, Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes Topic Review. This series will summarize the most important manuscripts, as selected by the Editor, which have published in the Circulation portfolio. The objective of this new series is to provide our readership with a timely, comprehensive selection of important papers that are relevant to the quality and outcomes, as well as general cardiology audience. The studies included in this article represent the most significant research related to hypertension.

Hospital patterns of use of positive inotropic agents in patients with heart failure.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine hospital variation in the use of positive inotropic agents in patients with heart failure. BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend targeted use of positive inotropic agents in highly selected patients, but data are limited and the recommendations are not specific. METHODS: We analyzed data from 376 hospitals including 189,948 hospitalizations for heart failure from 2009 through 2010. We used hierarchical logistic regression models to estimate hospital-level risk-standardized rates of inotrope use and risk-standardized in-hospital mortality rates. RESULTS: The risk-standardized rates of inotrope use ranged across hospitals from 0.9% to 44.6% (median: 6.3%, interquartile range: 4.3% to 9.2%). We identified various hospital patterns based on the type of agents: dobutamine-predominant (29% of hospitals), dopamine-predominant (25%), milrinone-predominant (1%), mixed dobutamine and dopamine pattern (32%), and mixed pattern including all 3 agents (13%). When studying the factors associated with interhospital variation, the best model performance was with the hierarchical generalized linear models that adjusted for patient case mix and an individual hospital effect (receiver operating characteristic curves from 0.77 to 0.88). The intraclass correlation coefficients of the hierarchical generalized linear models (0.113 for any inotrope) indicated that a noteworthy proportion of the observed variation was related to an individual institutional effect. Hospital rates or patterns of use were not associated with differences in length of stay or risk-standardized mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: We found marked differences in the use of inotropic agents for heart failure patients among a diverse group of hospitals. This variability, occurring in the context of little clinical evidence, indicates an urgent need to define the appropriate use of these medications.