Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Access to Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery.

Importance: Whether people from racial and ethnic minority groups experience disparities in access to minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (MIMVS) is not known. Objective: To investigate racial and ethnic disparities in the utilization of MIMVS. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Database for patients who underwent mitral valve surgery between 2014 and 2019. Statistical analysis was performed from January 24 to August 11, 2022. Exposures: Patients were categorized as non-Hispanic White, non-Hispanic Black, and Hispanic individuals. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association between MIMVS (vs full sternotomy) and race and ethnicity were evaluated using logistic regression. Results: Among the 103 753 patients undergoing mitral valve surgery (mean [SD] age, 62 [13] years; 47 886 female individuals [46.2%]), 10 404 (10.0%) were non-Hispanic Black individuals, 89 013 (85.8%) were non-Hispanic White individuals, and 4336 (4.2%) were Hispanic individuals. Non-Hispanic Black individuals were more likely to have Medicaid insurance (odds ratio [OR], 2.21; 95% CI, 1.64-2.98; P < .001) and to receive care from a low-volume surgeon (OR, 4.45; 95% CI, 4.01-4.93; P < .001) compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Non-Hispanic Black individuals were less likely to undergo MIMVS (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.58-0.73; P < .001), whereas Hispanic individuals were not less likely to undergo MIMVS compared with non-Hispanic White individuals (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.67-1.75; P = .74). Patients with commercial insurance had 2.35-fold higher odds of undergoing MIMVS (OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 2.06-2.68; P < .001) than those with Medicaid insurance. Patients operated by very-high volume surgeons (300 or more cases) had 20.7-fold higher odds (OR, 20.70; 95% CI, 12.7-33.9; P < .001) of undergoing MIMVS compared with patients treated by low-volume surgeons (less than 20 cases). After adjusting for patient risk, non-Hispanic Black individuals were still less likely to undergo MIMVS (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.78-0.99; P = .04) and were more likely to die or experience a major complication (aOR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.16-1.35; P < .001) compared with non-Hispanic White individuals. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, non-Hispanic Black patients were less likely to undergo MIMVS and more likely to die or experience a major complication than non-Hispanic White patients. These findings suggest that efforts to reduce inequity in cardiovascular medicine may need to include increasing access to private insurance and high-volume surgeons.

Left atrial appendage exclusion with less invasive left ventricular assist device implantation.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this single-center, pilot, prospective, and historical control study is to evaluate safety and feasibility outcomes associated with left atrial appendage exclusion (LAAE) concomitant with left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation via less invasive surgery (LIS) as a stroke prevention strategy. METHODS: A predefined number of 30 eligible subjects scheduled for LIS LVAD with LAAE were enrolled in the prospective arm between January 2020 and February 2021. Eligible retrospective LIS LVAD patients without LAAE were propensity-matched in a 1:1 ratio with the prospective arm subjects. The primary study objectives were to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and efficacy of the LAAE concomitant with LIS LVAD. RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics of patients in the Non-LAAE and LAAE groups were similar. LAAE was successfully excluded in all prospective patients (100%). Primary safety endpoints of chest tube output within the first 24 postoperative hours, Reoperation for bleeding within 48 h, and index hospitalization mortality demonstrated comparable safety of LAAE versus Non-LAAE with LIS LVAD. Cox proportional hazard regression demonstrated that LAAE with LIS LVAD was associated with 37% and 49% reduction in the risk of stroke and disabling stroke, respectively (p > .05). CONCLUSION: Results from our pilot study demonstrated the safety and feasibility of LAAE concomitant with LIS LVAD as a stroke prevention strategy. This is the first prospective study describing LAAE performed concomitantly to less invasive LVAD implantation. The efficacy of LAAE in long-term stroke prevention needs to be confirmed in future prospective randomized clinical trials.

Impact of surgical approach for left ventricular assist device implantation on postoperative invasive hemodynamics and right ventricular failure.

BACKGROUND: Right ventricular failure (RVF) remains one of the major causes of morbidity and mortality after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. We sought to compare immediate postoperative invasive hemodynamics and the risk of RVF following two different surgical approaches: less invasive surgery (LIS) versus full sternotomy (FS). METHODS: The study population comprised all 231 patients who underwent implantation of a HeartMate 3 (Abbott) LVAD at our institution from 2015 to 2020, utilizing an LIS (n = 161; 70%) versus FS (n = 70; 30%) surgical approach. Outcomes included postoperative invasive hemodynamic parameters, vasoactive-inotropic score (VIS), RVF during index hospitalization, and 6-month mortality. RESULTS: Baseline clinical characteristics of the two groups were similar. Multivariate analysis showed that LIS, compared with FS, was associated with the improved cardiac index (CI) at the sixth postoperative hour (p = .036) and similar CI at 24 h, maintained by lower VIS at both timepoints (p = .002). The LIS versus FS approach was also associated with a three-fold lower incidence of in-hospital severe RVF (8.7% vs. 28.6%, p < .001) and need for RVAD support (5.0% vs. 17.1%, p = .003), and with 68% reduction in the risk of 6-month mortality after LVAD implantation (Hazard ratio, 0.32; CI, 0.13-0.78; p = .012). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that LIS, compared with FS, is associated with a more favorable hemodynamic profile, as indicated by similar hemodynamic parameters maintained by lower vasoactive-inotropic support during the acute postoperative period. These findings were followed by a reduction in the risk of severe RVF and 6-month mortality in the LIS group.

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.