Outcomes of surgical mitral valve replacement: A benchmark to assess transcatheter technologies.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials are underway to evaluate the safety and efficacy of transcatheter mitral valve replacement in intermediate and high surgical risk patients. We analyzed outcomes of surgical mitral valve replacement in a regional consortium to provide benchmark data for emerging alternative therapies. METHODS: All patients undergoing mitral replacement with a Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality (STS PROM) in a regional consortium from 2001 to 2017 were analyzed. Patients with endocarditis were excluded. Patients were stratified by STS PROM into low (<4%), moderate (4%-8%), and high risk (>8%) cohorts. Mortality, postoperative complications, and resource utilization were evaluated for each group. RESULTS: A total of 1611 patients were analyzed including 927 (58%) low, 370 (23%) moderate, and 314 (20%) high-risk patients. The mean STS PROM was 2%, 5.6%, and 15.4% for each group. Mortality was adequately predicted for all groups while the most common complications included prolonged ventilation, reoperation, and renal failure. Higher risk patients had longer intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay (2 vs. 3 vs. 5 days, p < .0001 and 7 vs. 8 vs. 10 days, p < .0001) and higher total hospital costs ($38,029 vs. $45,075 vs. $59,171 p < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Mitral valve replacement is associated with acceptable morbidity and mortality, particularly for low and intermediate-risk patients. These outcomes also serve as a benchmark with which to compare forthcoming results of transcatheter mitral valve replacement trials.

Concomitant Left Atrial Appendage Closure Outcomes and Cost: A Multi-institutional Cohort Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) is frequently performed during cardiac operations, but the impact of LAAC on patient outcomes is not fully known. We hypothesized that the addition of LAAC would increase morbidity and resource utilization. METHODS: All patients undergoing cardiac surgery from a multi-institutional Society of Thoracic Surgeons database from 2011 to 2016 were stratified by LAAC. The effect of LAAC on risk-adjusted outcomes was assessed by hierarchical regression modeling accounting for preoperative risk factors, planned surgical procedure, hospital, and year. RESULTS: Concomitant LAAC was performed on 2384 of 28,311 patients (9.3%), who were older, with a greater burden of preoperative atrial fibrillation and heart failure. Although the addition of LAAC increased the risk of new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation (OR 1.69, P < 0.01), it did not increase rates of major morbidity (OR 1.00, P = 0.970), stroke (OR 0.92, P = 0.787), or mortality (OR 0.93, P = 0.684). Although cardiopulmonary bypass time was not significantly increased by LAAC, patients' total hospitalization costs were $3035 higher (P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Although concomitant LAAC was not associated with major complications, there were higher risk-adjusted rates of new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation. Furthermore, LAAC added approximately $3000 to a patient's total hospital cost. These short-term risks and costs should be weighed against potential long-term benefits of left atrial appendage closure.

Preoperative ß-blocker use correlates with worse outcomes in patients undergoing aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVES: ß-Blocker use is associated with fewer cardiac complications in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery and is a quality metric for coronary artery bypass grafting. We sought to determine the influence of preoperative ß-blocker administration before aortic valve replacement (AVR). METHODS: All patients undergoing isolated AVR from 2002 to 2016 were extracted from a multi-institutional, statewide database composed of Society of Thoracic Surgeons data. Patients were propensity score matched by preoperative and operative variables, and the effects of preoperative ß-blockers on outcomes were assessed. RESULTS: Of 7380 eligible patients, 53% received a preoperative ß-blocker. After propensity matching, a total of 4592 patients were well matched (1:1) with minimal baseline differences between groups. Within the matched cohort, the operative mortality rate (ß-blocker: 2.8% vs no ß-blocker: 2.4%; P = .454) and rate of major morbidity (14.4% vs 12.7%; P = .101) were similar between groups. The rates of cardiac arrest (2.1% vs 1.3%; P = .034), renal failure requiring dialysis (1.7% vs 0.9%; P = .007), and postoperative transfusion (38.2% vs 33.8%; P = .002) after AVR were significantly greater in the cohort receiving preoperative ß-blockade. Postoperative atrial fibrillation was also more prevalent in patients receiving a preoperative ß-blocker (26.9% vs 23.4%; P = .007). Finally, preoperative ß-blocker use was associated with longer postoperative intensive care unit stays (45.2 vs 47.0 hours; P = .001), but clinically similar hospital length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative ß-blocker administration is not associated with improved outcomes after AVR but instead is associated with increased postoperative morbidity. Routinely initiating preoperative ß-blockade is not supported in patients undergoing AVR.

Blood product conservation is associated with improved outcomes and reduced costs after cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Efforts to reduce blood product use have the potential to avoid transfusion-related complications and reduce health care costs. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether a multi-institutional effort to reduce blood product use affects postoperative events after cardiac surgical operations and to determine the influence of perioperative transfusion on risk-adjusted outcomes. METHODS: A total of 14,259 patients (2006-2010) undergoing nonemergency, primary, isolated coronary artery bypass grafting operations at 17 different statewide cardiac centers were stratified according to transfusion guideline era: pre-guideline (n = 7059, age = 63.7 ± 10.6 years) versus post-guideline (n = 7200, age = 63.7 ± 10.5 years). Primary outcomes of interest were observed differences in postoperative events and mortality risk-adjusted associations as estimated by multiple regression analysis. RESULTS: Overall intraoperative (24% vs 18%, P < .001) and postoperative (39% vs 33%, P < .001) blood product transfusion were significantly reduced in the post-guideline era. Patients in the post-guideline era demonstrated reduced morbidity with decreased pneumonia (P = .01), prolonged ventilation (P = .05), renal failure (P = .03), new-onset hemodialysis (P = .004), and composite incidence of major complications (P = .001). Operative mortality (1.0% vs 1.8%, P < .001) and postoperative ventilation time (22 vs 26 hours, P < .001) were similarly reduced in the post-guideline era. Of note, after mortality risk adjustment, operations performed in the post-guideline era were associated with a 47% reduction in the odds of death (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57; P < .001), whereas the risk of major complications and mortality were significantly increased after intraoperative (adjusted odds ratio, 1.86 and 1.25; both P < .001) and postoperative (adjusted odds ratio, 4.61 and 4.50, both P < .001) transfusion. Intraoperative and postoperative transfusions were associated with increased adjusted incremental total hospitalization costs ($4408 and $10,479, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a blood use initiative significantly improves postoperative morbidity, mortality, and resource utilization. Limiting intraoperative and postoperative blood product transfusion decreases adverse postoperative events and reduces health care costs. Blood conservation efforts are bolstered by collaboration and guideline development.