Outcomes, Cost, and Readmission After Surgical Aortic or Mitral Valve Replacement at Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Safety-net hospitals provide essential services to vulnerable patients with complex medical and socioeconomic circumstances. We hypothesized that matched patients at safety-net hospitals and non-safety-net hospitals would have comparable outcomes, costs, and readmission rates after isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR). METHODS: The National Readmissions Database was queried to identify patients who underwent isolated AVR (n = 109 744) or MVR (n = 31 475) from 2016 to 2018. Safety-net burden was defined as the percentage of patients who were uninsured or insured with Medicaid, with hospitals in the top quartile designated as safety-net hospitals. After propensity score matching, outcomes for AVR and MVR at safety-net hospitals vs non-safety-net hospitals were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 17 925 AVRs (16%) and 5516 MVRs (18%) were performed at safety-net hospitals, and these patients had higher comorbidity rates, had lower socioeconomic status, and more frequently required urgent surgery. Observed inhospital mortality was similar between safety-net hospitals and non-safety-net hospitals (AVR 2.2% vs 2.1%, P = .4; MVR 4.8% vs 4.3%, P = .1). After matching, rates of inhospital mortality, major morbidity, and readmission were similar; however, safety-net hospitals had longer length of stay after AVR (7 vs 6 days, P = .001) and higher total cost after AVR ($49 015 vs $42 473, P < .001) and MVR ($59 253 vs $52 392, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Isolated surgical AVR and MVR are both performed at safety-net hospitals with outcomes comparable to those at non-safety-net hospitals, supporting efforts to expand access to these procedures for underserved populations. Investment in care coordination resources to reduce length of stay and curtail cost at safety-net hospitals is warranted.

Blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injuries: early or delayed repair--results of an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma prospective study.

BACKGROUND: The traditional approach to stable blunt thoracic aortic injuries (TAI) is immediate repair, with delayed repair reserved for patients with major associated injuries. In recent years, there has been a trend toward delayed repair, even in low-risk patients. This study evaluates the current practices in the surgical community regarding the timing of aortic repair and its effects on outcomes. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational multicenter study sponsored by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. The study included patients with blunt TAI scheduled for aortic repair by open or endovascular procedure. Patients in extremis and those managed without aortic repair were excluded. The data collection included demographics, initial clinical presentation, Injury Severity Scores, type and site of aortic injury, type of aortic repair (open or endovascular repair), and time from injury to aortic repair. The study patients were divided into an early repair (< or = 24 hours) and delayed repair groups (> 24 hours). The outcome variables included survival, ventilator days, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay, blood transfusions, and complications. The outcomes in the two groups were compared with multivariate analysis after adjusting for age, Glasgow Coma Scale, hypotension, major associated injuries, and type of aortic repair. A second multivariate analysis compared outcomes between early and delayed repair, in patients with and patients without major associated injuries. RESULTS: There were 178 patients with TAI eligible for inclusion and analysis, 109 (61.2%) of which underwent early repair and 69 (38.8%) delayed repair. The two groups had similar epidemiologic, injury severity, and type of repair characteristics. The adjusted mortality was significantly higher in the early repair group (adjusted OR [95% CI] 7.78 [1.69-35.70], adjusted p value = 0.008). The adjusted complication rate was similar in the two groups. However, delayed repair was associated with significantly longer ICU and hospital lengths of stay. Analysis of the 108 patients without major associated injuries, adjusting for age, Glasgow Coma Scale, hypotension, and type of aortic repair, showed that in early repair there was a trend toward higher mortality rate (adjusted OR 9.08 [0.88-93.78], adjusted p value = 0.064) but a significantly lower complication rate (adjusted OR 0.4 [0.18-0.96], adjusted p value 0.040) and shorter ICU stay (adjusted p value = 0.021) than the delayed repair group. A similar analysis of the 68 patients with major associated injuries, showed a strong trend toward higher mortality in the early repair group (adjusted OR 9.39 [0.93-95.18], adjusted p value = 0.058). The complication rate was similar in both groups (adjusted p value = 0.239). CONCLUSIONS: Delayed repair of stable blunt TAI is associated with improved survival, irrespective of the presence or not of major associated injuries. However, delayed repair is associated with a longer length of ICU stay and in the group of patients with no major associated injuries a significantly higher complication rate.

Endovascular repair of traumatic thoracic aortic injuries: a critical appraisal.

Blunt trauma to the thoracic aorta is life-threatening, with instant fatality in at least 75% of victims. If left untreated, nearly half of those who survive the initial injury will die within the first 24 hours. Surgical repair has been the standard treatment of blunt aortic injury, but immediate operative intervention is frequently difficult due to concomitant injuries. Although endovascular treatment of traumatic aortic disruption is less invasive than conventional repair via thoracotomy, this strategy remains controversial in young patients due to anatomical considerations and device limitations. This article reviews the likely advantages of endovascular interventions for blunt thoracic aortic injuries. Potential limitations and clinical outcomes of this minimally invasive technique are also discussed.

Diagnosis and treatment of blunt thoracic aortic injuries: changing perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis and management of blunt thoracic aortic injuries has undergone many significant changes over the last decade. The present study compares clinical practices and results between an earlier prospective multicenter study by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma completed in 1997 (AAST1) and a new similar study completed in 2007 (AAST2). METHODS: The AAST1 study included 274 patients from 50 participating centers over a period of 30 months. The AAST2 study included 193 patients from 18 centers, over a period of 26 months. The comparisons between the two studies included the method of definitive diagnosis of the aortic injury [computed tomography (CT) scan, aortography, transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) or magnetic resonance imaging], the method of definitive aortic repair (open repair vs. endovascular repair, clamp and sew vs. bypass techniques), the time from injury to procedure (early vs. delayed repair), and outcomes (survival, procedure-related paraplegia, other complications). RESULTS: There was a major shift of the method of definitive diagnosis of the aortic injury, from aortography in the AAST1 to CT scan in AAST2, and a nearly complete elimination of aortography and TEE in the AAST2 study. In the AAST2 study the diagnosis was made by CT scan in 93.3%, aortography in 8.3%, and TEE in 1.0% of patients when compared with 34.8%, 87.0%, and 11.9%, respectively, in the AAST1 study (p < 0.001). The mean time from injury to aortic repair increased from 16.5 hours in the AAST1 study to 54.6 hours in the AAST2 study (p < 0.001). In the AAST1 study, all patients were managed with open repair, whereas in the AAST2 study only 35.2% were managed with open repair and the remaining 64.8% were managed with endovascular stent-grafts. In the patients managed with open repair, the use of bypass techniques increased from 64.7% to 83.8%. The overall mortality, excluding patients in extremis, decreased significantly from 22.0% to 13.0% (p = 0.02). Also, the incidence of procedure-related paraplegia in patients with planned operation, decreased from 8.7% to 1.6% (p = 0.001). However, the incidence of early graft-related complications increased from 0.5% in the AAST1 to 18.4% in the AAST2 study. CONCLUSIONS: Comparison between the two AAST studies in 1997 and 2007 showed a major shift in the diagnosis of the aortic injury, with the widespread use of CT scan and the almost complete elimination of aortography and TEE. The concept of delayed definitive repair has gained wide acceptance. Endovascular repair has replaced open repair to a great extent. These changes have resulted in a major reduction of mortality and procedure-related paraplegia but also a significant increase of early graft-related complications.

Operative repair or endovascular stent graft in blunt traumatic thoracic aortic injuries: results of an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this American Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter study is to assess the early efficacy and safety of endovascular stent grafts (SGs) in traumatic thoracic aortic injuries and compare outcomes with the standard operative repair (OR). PATIENTS: Prospective, multicenter study. Data for the following were collected: age, blood pressure, and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) at admission, type of aortic injury, injury severity score, abbreviate injury scale (AIS), transfusions, survival, ventilator days, complications, and intensive care unit and hospital days. The outcomes between the two groups (open repair or SG) were compared, adjusting for presence of critical extrathoracic trauma (head, abdomen, or extremity AIS >3), GCS score 55 years. Separate multivariable analysis was performed, one for patients without and one for patients with associated critical extrathoracic injuries (head, abdomen, or extremity AIS >3), to compare the outcomes of the two therapeutic modalities adjusting for hypotension, GCS score 55 years. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-three patients met the criteria for inclusion. Overall, 125 patients (64.9%) were selected for SG and 68 (35.2%) for OR. SG was selected in 71.6% of the 74 patients with major extrathoracic injuries and in 60.0% of the 115 patients with no major extrathoracic injuries. SG patients were significantly older than OR patients. Overall, 25 patients in the SG group (20.0%) developed 32 device-related complications. There were 18 endoleaks (14.4%), 6 of which needed open repair. Procedure-related paraplegia developed in 2.9% in the OR and 0.8% in the SG groups (p = 0.28). Multivariable analysis adjusting for severe extrathoracic injuries, hypotension, GCS, and age, showed that the SG group had a significantly lower mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 8.42; 95% CI: [2.76-25.69]; adjusted p value <0.001), and fewer blood transfusions (adjusted mean difference: 4.98; 95% CI: [0.14-9.82]; adjusted p value = 0.046) than the OR group. Among the 115 patients without major extrathoracic injuries, higher mortality and higher transfusion requirements were also found in the OR group (adjusted odds ratio for mortality: 13.08; 95% CI [2.53-67.53], adjusted p value = 0.002 and adjusted mean difference in transfusion units: 4.45; 95% CI [1.39-7.51]; adjusted p value = 0.004). Among the 74 patients with major extrathoracic injuries, significantly higher mortality and pneumonia rate were found in the OR group (adjusted p values 0.04 and 0.03, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that centers with high volume of endovascular procedures had significantly fewer systemic complications (adjusted p value 0.001), fewer local complications (adjusted p value p = 0.033), and shorter hospital lengths of stay (adjusted p value 0.005) than low-volume centers. CONCLUSIONS: Most surgeons select SG for traumatic thoracic aortic ruptures, irrespective of associated injuries, injury severity, and age. SG is associated with significantly lower mortality and fewer blood transfusions, but there is a considerable risk of serious device-related complications. There is a major and urgent need for improvement of the available endovascular devices.

Critical evaluation of chest computed tomography scans for blunt descending thoracic aortic injury.

BACKGROUND: Although aortography has been the long-held "gold standard" for diagnosis of traumatic blunt aortic injury, advances in imaging technology offer less-invasive, more-rapid, and potentially more cost-effective evaluation. The purpose of this study was to review this hospital's experience with the screening and diagnosis of blunt aortic injury with emphasis on the critical evaluation of computed tomography (CT) scans for defining descending thoracic aortic injury. METHODS: A retrospective single-center analysis of all patients undergoing aortography to evaluate for blunt aortic injury between January 1, 1997, and August 31, 2004, was performed. A policy of relying on CT scans to definitively diagnose blunt aortic injury was not in force, and all patients with positive, equivocal, and negative screening CT scans with significant injury mechanism underwent subsequent aortography; this contributed to an unbiased analysis. A subgroup of patients imaged with the latest generation multislice CT scanners (July 1, 2003, to August 31, 2004) was separately analyzed with rapid three-dimensional reconstruction. RESULTS: Of 856 aortograms, 206 (24.1%) were preceded by chest CT scan. Of 31 patients with confirmed aortic injury, 20 had undergone CT scan with 16 positive for definite injury, 3 positive for possible injury, and 1 false-negative study. Of the 206 patients scanned, 114 (55.3%) showed possible injury, 76 (36.9%) were negative, and 16 (7.8%) were positive. Only 3 of the 114 with possible injury (2.6%) were true positives whereas 1 of the 76 negative scans (1.3%) was a false negative and all 16 positive scans were true positives. These data for CT scan imaging result in a sensitivity of 95%, a specificity of 40%, a positive predictive value of 15%, and a negative predictive value of 99%. CONCLUSIONS: Chest CT is an acceptable screening tool based on prerequisite high sensitivity and ease of performance in the trauma patient suspected of having a descending thoracic aortic injury. Although the excellent negative predictive value resulted in an algorithm change at this institution, there were a significant number of equivocal scans that required subsequent aortography. Three-dimensional software reconstruction of the aorta can aid in diagnosing blunt aortic injury when findings are equivocal, but there will continue to be artifacts and limitations that require aortography for clarification.

Outcomes in single versus bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting in coronary artery bypass surgery.

The authors analyzed the early outcomes in two groups of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with single versus bilateral internal thoracic arteries (ITA) in their institution. One thousand sixty-nine patients underwent CABG with single or bilateral ITAs from 1990 to 2000. Of these patients, 911 (85.2%) had single ITA and 158 had bilateral ITA (14.8%). The incidence of tobacco abuse was 40.3% in the single ITA group and 56.7% in the double ITA group (P = 0.0001). The incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction, renal failure, reoperation for bleeding, stroke, or operative mortality did not differ in the two groups. There was a 4.4% incidence of mediastinitis in the bilateral ITA group versus 2.2% in the single ITA group (P = 0.0602). Early outcomes after bilateral ITA grafting for CABG are similar to single ITA grafting. Careful judgment should be exercised in selecting patients for bilateral ITA grafting, particularly if the patient smokes.