Hospital Variation in Skilled Nursing Facility Use After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Over 20% of patients are discharged to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) after coronary artery bypass graft surgery, but little is known about specific drivers for postdischarge SNF use. The purpose of this study was to evaluate hospital variation in SNF use and its association with postoperative outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective study design utilizing Medicare Provider Analysis and Review files was used to evaluate SNF use among 70 509 beneficiaries undergoing coronary artery bypass graft, with or without valve procedures, between 2016 and 2018. A total of 17 328 (24.6%) were discharged to a SNF, ranging from 0% to 88% across 871 hospitals. Multilevel logistic regression models identified significant patient-level predictors of discharge to SNF including increasing age, comorbidities, female sex, Black race, dual eligibility, and postoperative complications. After adjusting for patient and hospital factors, 15.6% of the variation in hospital SNF use was attributed to the discharging hospital. Compared with the lower quartile of hospital SNF use, hospitals in the top quartile of SNF use had lower risk-adjusted 1-year mortality (12.5% versus 8.6%, P<0.001) and readmission (59.9% versus 49.8%, P<0.001) rates for patients discharged to a SNF. CONCLUSIONS: There is high variability in SNF use among hospitals that is only partially explained by patient characteristics. Hospitals with higher SNF utilization had lower risk-adjusted 1-year mortality and readmission rates for patients discharged to a SNF. More work is needed to better understand underlying provider and hospital-level factors contributing to SNF use variability.

Relationship Between Community-Level Distress and Cardiac Rehabilitation Participation, Facility Access, and Clinical Outcomes After Inpatient Coronary Revascularization.

BACKGROUND: Although disparities in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) participation are well documented, the role of community-level distress is poorly understood. This study evaluated the relationship between community-level distress and CR participation, access to CR facilities, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on a 100% sample of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing inpatient coronary revascularization between July 2016 and December 2018. Community-level distress was defined using the Distressed Community Index quintile at the beneficiary zip code level, with the first and fifth quintiles representing prosperous and distressed communities, respectively. Outpatient claims were used to identify any CR use within 1 year of discharge. Beneficiary and CR facility zip codes were used to describe access to CR facilities. Adjusted logistic regression models evaluated the association between Distressed Community Index quintiles, CR use, and clinical outcomes, including one-year mortality, all-cause hospitalization, and acute myocardial infarction hospitalization. RESULTS: A total of 414 730 beneficiaries were identified, with 96 929 (23.4%) located in the first and 67 900 (16.4%) in the fifth quintiles, respectively. Any CR use was lower for beneficiaries in distressed compared with prosperous communities (26.0% versus 46.1%, P<0.001), which was significant after multivariable adjustment (odds ratio, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.40-0.42]). A total of 98 458 (23.7%) beneficiaries had a CR facility within their zip code, which increased from 16.3% in prosperous communities to 26.6% in distressed communities. Any CR use was associated with absolute reductions in mortality (-6.8% [95% CI, -7.0% to -6.7%]), all-cause hospitalization (-5.9% [95% CI, -6.3% to -5.6%]), and acute myocardial infarction hospitalization (-1.3% [95% CI, -1.5% to -1.1%]), which were similar across each Distressed Community Index quintiles. CONCLUSIONS: Although community-level distress was associated with lower CR participation, the clinical benefits were universally received. Addressing barriers to CR in distressed communities should be considered a significant priority to improve survival after coronary revascularization and reduce disparities.

Determinants and Outcomes Associated With Skilled Nursing Facility Use After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Statewide Experience.

BACKGROUND: Skilled nursing facility (SNF) care is frequently used after cardiac surgery, but the patterns and determinants of use have not been well understood. The objective of this study was to evaluate determinants and outcomes associated with SNF use after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of Medicare Fee-For-Service claims linked to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons clinical data was conducted on isolated coronary artery bypass grafting patients without prior SNF use in Michigan between 2011 and 2019. Descriptive analysis evaluated the frequency, trends, and variation in SNF use across 33 Michigan hospitals. Multivariable mixed-effects regression was used to evaluate patient-level demographic and clinical determinants of SNF use and its effect on short- and long-term outcomes. RESULTS: In our sample of 8614 patients, the average age was 73.3 years, 70.5% were male, and 7.7% were listed as non-White race. An SNF was utilized by 1920 (22.3%) patients within 90 days of discharge and varied from 3.2% to 58.3% across the 33 hospitals. Patients using SNFs were more likely to be female, older, non-White, with more comorbidities, worse cardiovascular function, a perioperative morbidity, and longer hospital lengths of stay. Outcomes were significantly worse for SNF users, including more frequent 90-day readmissions and emergency department visits and less use of home health and rehabilitation services. SNF users had higher risk-adjusted hazard of mortality (hazard ratio, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.26-1.57]; P<0.001) compared with non-SNF users and had 2.7-percentage point higher 5-year mortality rate in a propensity-matched cohort of patients (18.1% versus 15.4%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of SNF care after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting was frequent and variable across Michigan hospitals and associated with worse risk-adjusted outcomes. Standardization of criteria for SNF use may reduce variability among hospitals and ensure appropriateness of use.

Association of Days Alive and Out of the Hospital After Ventricular Assist Device Implantation With Adverse Events and Quality of Life.

Importance: There is a need to better assess the cumulative effect on morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation. This study evaluates a patient-centered performance metric (days alive and out of hospital [DAOH]) for durable LVAD therapy. Objective: To determine the incidence of percent of DAOH before and after LVAD implantation and (2) explore its association with established quality metrics (death, adverse events [AEs], quality of life). Design, Settings, and Participants: This was a retrospective national cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries implanted with a durable continuous-flow LVAD between April 2012 and December 2016. The data were analyzed from December 2021 to May 2022. Follow-up was 100% complete at 1 year. Data from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs registry were linked to Medicare claims. Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of DAOH 180 days before and 365 days after LVAD implantation and daily patient location (home, index hospital, nonindex hospital, skilled nursing facility, rehabilitation center, hospice) were calculated. Percent of DAOH was indexed to each beneficiary's pre- (percent DAOH-BF) and postimplantation (percentage of DAOH-AF) follow-up time. The cohort was stratified by terciles of percentage of DAOH-AF. Results: Among the 3387 patients included (median [IQR] age: 66.3 [57.9-70.9] years), 80.9% were male, 33.6% and 37.1% were Interfaces Patient Profile 2 and 3, respectively, and 61.1% received implants as destination therapy. Median (IQR) percent of DAOH-BF was 88.8% (82.7%-93.8%) and 84.6% (62.1-91.5%) for percent of DAOH-AF. While DAOH-BF was not associated with post-LVAD outcomes, patients in the low tercile of percentage of DAOH-AF had a longer index hospitalization stay (mean, 44 days; 95% CI, 16-77), were less likely to be discharged home (mean. -46.4 days; 95% CI, 44.2-49.1), and spent more time in a skilled nursing facility (mean, 27 days; 95% CI, 24-29), rehabilitation center (mean, 10 days; 95% CI, 8-12), or hospice (mean, 6 days; 95% CI, 4-8). Increasing percentage of DAOH-AF was associated with patient risk, AEs, and indices of HRQoL. Patients experiencing non-LVAD-related AEs had the lowest percentage of DAOH-AF. Conclusions and Relevance: Significant variability existed in the percentage of DAOH within a 1-year time horizon and was associated with the cumulative AEs burden. This patient-centered measure may assist clinicians in informing patients about expectations after durable LVAD implantation. Validation of percentage DAOH as a quality metric for LVAD therapy across centers should be explored.

Operating Room Versus Intensive Care Unit Extubation Within 6 Hours After On-Pump Cardiac Surgery: Early Results and Hospital Costs.

Time-directed extubation (fast-track) protocols may decrease length of stay and cost but data on operating room (OR) extubation is limited. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of extubation in the OR versus fast-track extubation within 6 hours of leaving the operating room. Patients undergoing nonemergent STS index cases (2011-2021) who were extubated within 6 hours were identified from a regional STS quality collaborative. Patients were stratified by extubation in the OR versus fast track. Propensity score matching (1:n) was performed to balance baseline differences. Of the 24,962 patients, 498 were extubated in the OR. After matching, 487 OR extubation cases and 899 fast track cases were well balanced. The rate of reintubation was higher for patients extubated in the OR [21/487 (4.3%) vs 16/899 (1.8%), P = 0.008] as was the incidence of reoperation for bleeding [12/487 (2.5%) vs 8/899 (0.9%), P = 0.03]. There was no significant difference in the rate of any reoperation [16/487 (3.3%) vs 15/899 (1.6%), P = 0.06] or operative mortality [4/487 (0.8%) vs 6/899 (0.6%), P = 0.7]. OR extubation was associated with shorter hospital length of stay (5.6 vs 6.2 days, P < 0.001) and lower total cost of admission ($29,602 vs $31,565 P < 0.001). OR extubation is associated with a higher postoperative risk of reintubation and reoperation due to bleeding, but lower resource utilization.Future research exploring predictors of extubation readiness may be required prior to widespread adoption of this practice.

Comparison of Evaluations for Heart Transplant Before Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device and Subsequent Receipt of Transplant at Transplant vs Nontransplant Centers.

Importance: In 2020, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services revised its national coverage determination, removing the requirement to obtain review from a Medicare-approved heart transplant center to implant a durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) for bridge-to-transplant (BTT) intent at an LVAD-only center. The association between center-level transplant availability and access to heart transplant, the gold-standard therapy for advanced heart failure (HF), is unknown. Objective: To investigate the association of center transplant availability with LVAD implant strategies and subsequent heart transplant following LVAD implant before the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policy change. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Intermacs multicenter US registry database was conducted from April 1, 2012, to June 30, 2020. The population included patients with HF receiving a primary durable LVAD. Exposures: LVAD center transplant availability (LVAD/transplant vs LVAD only). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were implant strategy as BTT and subsequent transplant by 2 years. Covariates that might affect listing strategy and outcomes were included (eg, patient demographic characteristics, comorbidities) in multivariable models. Parameters for BTT listing were estimated using logistic regression with center-level random effects and for receipt of a transplant using a Cox proportional hazards regression model with death as a competing event. Results: The sample included 22 221 LVAD recipients with a median age of 59.0 (IQR, 50.0-67.0) years, of whom 17 420 (78.4%) were male and 3156 (14.2%) received implants at LVAD-only centers. Receiving an LVAD at an LVAD/transplant center was associated with a 79% increased adjusted odds of BTT LVAD designation (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.35-2.38; P < .001). The 2-year transplant rate following LVAD implant was 25.6% at LVAD/transplant centers and 11.9% at LVAD-only centers. There was an associated 33% increased rate of transplant at LVAD/transplant centers compared with LVAD-only centers (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.17-1.51) with a similar hazard for death at 2 years (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.90-1.08). Conclusions and Relevance: Receiving an LVAD at an LVAD-transplant center was associated with increased odds of BTT intent at implant and subsequent transplant receipt for patients at 2 years. The findings of this study suggest that Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policy change may have the unintended consequence of further increasing inequities in access to transplant among patients at LVAD-only centers.

Longitudinal analysis of National Institutes of Health funding for academic thoracic surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for academic (noncardiac) thoracic surgeons at the top-140 NIH-funded institutes in the United States was assessed. We hypothesized that thoracic surgeons have difficulty in obtaining NIH funding in a difficult funding climate. METHODS: The top-140 NIH-funded institutes' faculty pages were searched for noncardiac thoracic surgeons. Surgeon data, including gender, academic rank, and postfellowship training were recorded. These surgeons were then queried in NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results for their funding history. Analysis of the resulting grants (1980-2019) included grant type, funding amount, project start/end dates, publications, and a citation-based Grant Impact Metric to evaluate productivity. RESULTS: A total of 395 general thoracic surgeons were evaluated with 63 (16%) receiving NIH funding. These 63 surgeons received 136 grants totaling $228 million, resulting in 1772 publications, and generating more than 50,000 citations. Thoracic surgeons have obtained NIH funding at an increasing rate (1980-2019); however, they have a low percentage of R01 renewal (17.3%). NIH-funded thoracic surgeons were more likely to have a higher professorship level. Thoracic surgeons perform similarly to other physician-scientists in converting K-Awards into R01 funding. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to our hypothesis, thoracic surgeons have received more NIH funding over time. Thoracic surgeons are able to fill the roles of modern surgeon-scientists by obtaining NIH funding during an era of increasing clinical demands. The NIH should continue to support this mission.

Socioeconomic risk-adjustment with the Area Deprivation Index predicts surgical morbidity and cost.

BACKGROUND: There is a strong association between socioeconomic status and surgical outcomes; however, the optimal method for socioeconomic risk-stratification remains elusive. We aimed to compare 2 metrics of socioeconomic ranking by ZIP code, the Distressed Communities Index, and the Area Deprivation Index and their association with surgical outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective study included all general surgery cases performed at a single institution from 2005 to 2015. Each patient was assigned Distressed Communities Index and Area Deprivation Index scores based on ZIP code. Both indices are normalized composite measures of socioeconomic status derived from census data. Primary outcome was 30-day morbidity; secondary outcomes included long-term mortality and cost, stratified by socioeconomic status. The utility of the addition of each metric to the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator was assessed. RESULTS: The 9,843 patients had normally distributed Distressed Communities Index (47.3 ± 22.4) and Area Deprivation Index (35.4 ± 19.0). Patients who experienced any complication or readmission had significantly higher Distressed Communities Index (48.6 vs 47.1, P = .04) and Area Deprivation Index (37.2 vs 35.1, P = .002). Risk-adjusted models demonstrated that only Area Deprivation Index independently predicted postoperative complications (odds ratio 1.11, P = .02), improved the discrimination of risk-stratification when added to the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator (area under curve 0.758-0.790, P = .02), and was associated with hospitalization cost ($1,811 ± 856/quartile, P = .03). CONCLUSION: Area Deprivation Index provides improved socioeconomic risk-adjustment in this surgical population. The addition of Area Deprivation Index to risk-stratification tools would allow us to better inform our patients of their expected postoperative courses, more accurately account for the increased cost of providing their care, and identify patients and regions that are most in need of improvements in health and healthcare.

New-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation impact on 5-year clinical outcomes and costs.

OBJECTIVE: The impact of new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery on long-term clinical outcomes and costs is not known. This subanalysis of the Veterans Affairs "Randomized On/Off Bypass Follow-up Study" compared 5-year outcomes and costs between patients with and without POAF. METHODS: Of the 2203 veterans in the study, 100 with pre-CABG atrial fibrillation (93) or missing data (7) were excluded (4.8%). Unadjusted and risk-adjusted outcomes were compared between new-onset POAF (n = 551) and patients without POAF (n = 1552). Five-year clinical outcomes included mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, comprising mortality, repeat revascularization, and myocardial infarction), MACE subcomponents, stroke, and costs. A stringent P value of ≤.01 was required to identify statistical significance. RESULTS: Patients with POAF were older and had more complex comorbidities. Unadjusted 5-year all-cause mortality was 16.3% POAF versus 11.9% no-POAF, P = .008. Unadjusted cardiac-mortality was 7.4% versus 4.8%, P = .022. There were no differences between groups in any other unadjusted outcomes including MACE or stroke. After risk adjustment, there were no significant differences between groups in 5-year all-cause mortality (POAF odds ratio, 1.19; 99% confidence interval, 0.81-1.75) or cardiac mortality (odds ratio, 1.51, 99% confidence interval, 0.88-2.60). Adjusted first-year post-CABG costs were $15,300 greater for patients with POAF, but 2- through 5-year costs were similar. CONCLUSIONS: No 5-year risk-adjusted outcome differences were found between patients with and without POAF after CABG. Although first-year costs were greater in patients with POAF, this difference did not persist in subsequent years.

Minimally Invasive vs Open Coronary Surgery: A Multi-Institutional Analysis of Cost and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Limited multi-institutional data evaluating minimally invasive cardiac surgery (MICS) coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) outcomes have raised concern for increased resource utilization compared with standard sternotomy. The purpose of this study was to assess short-term outcomes and resource utilization with MICS CABG in a propensity-matched regional cohort. METHODS: Isolated CABG patients (2012-2019) were extracted from a regional Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. Patients were stratified by MICS CABG vs open CABG via sternotomy, propensity-score matched 1:2 to balance baseline differences, and compared by univariate analysis. RESULTS: Of 26,255 isolated coronary artery bypass graft patients, 139 MICS CABG and 278 open CABG patients were well balanced after matching. There was no difference in the operative mortality rate (2.2% open vs 0.7% MICS CABG, P = .383) or major morbidity (7.9% open vs 7.2% MICS CABG, P = .795). However, open CABG patients received more blood products (22.2% vs 12.2%, P = .013), and had longer intensive care unit (45 vs 30 hours, P = .049) as well as hospital lengths of stay (7 vs 6 days, P = .005). Finally, median hospital cost was significantly higher in the open CABG group ($35,011 vs $27,906, P < .001) compared with MICS CABG. CONCLUSIONS: Open CABG via sternotomy and MICS CABG approaches are associated with similar, excellent perioperative outcomes. However, MICS CABG was associated with fewer transfusions, shorter length of stay, and ∼$7000 lower hospital cost, a superior resource utilization profile that improves patient care and lowers cost.

Early Versus Delayed Pacemaker for Heart Block After Valve Surgery: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: A significant percentage of patients who acutely develop high-grade atrioventricular block after valve surgery will ultimately recover, yet the ability to predict recovery is limited. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of two different management strategies for the timing of permanent pacemaker implantation for new heart block after valve surgery. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness model was developed using costs and probabilities of short- and long-term complications of pacemaker placement, short-term atrioventricular node recovery, intensive care unit stays, and long-term follow-up. We aggregated the total expected cost and utility of each option over a 20-y period. Quality-adjusted survival with a pacemaker was estimated from the literature and institutional patient-reported outcomes. Primary decision analysis was based on an expected recovery rate of 36.7% at 12 d with timing of pacemaker implantation: early placement (5 d) versus watchful waiting for 12 d. RESULTS: A strategy of watchful waiting was more costly ($171,798 ± $45,695 versus $165,436 ± $52,923; P < 0.0001) but had a higher utility (9.05 ± 1.36 versus 8.55 ± 1.33 quality-adjusted life years; P < 0.0001) than an early pacemaker implantation strategy. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of watchful waiting was $12,724 per quality-adjusted life year. The results are sensitive to differences in quality-adjusted survival and rates of recovery of atrioventricular node function. CONCLUSIONS: Watchful waiting for pacemaker insertion is a cost-effective management strategy compared with early placement for acute atrioventricular block after valve surgery. Although this is cost-effective from a population perspective, clinical risk scores predicting recovery will aid in personalized decision-making.

A 30-year analysis of National Institutes of Health-funded cardiac transplantation research: Surgeons lead the way.

OBJECTIVES: Obtaining National Institutes of Health funding for heart transplant research is becoming increasingly difficult, especially for surgeons. We sought to determine the impact of National Institutes of Health-funded cardiac transplantation research over the past 30 years. METHODS: National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results was queried for R01s using 10 heart transplant-related terms. Principal Investigator, total grant funding amount, number of publications, and citations of manuscripts were collected. A citation-based Grant Impact Metric was assigned to each grant: sum of citations for each manuscript normalized by the funding of the respective grant (per $100K). The department and background degree(s) (MD, PhD, MD/PhD) for each funded Principal Investigator were identified from institutional faculty profiles. RESULTS: A total of 321 cardiac transplantation R01s totaling $723 million and resulting in 6513 publications were analyzed. Surgery departments received more grants and more funding dollars to study cardiac transplantation than any other department (n = 115, $249 million; Medicine: n = 93, $208 million; Pathology: 26, $55 million). Surgeons performed equally well compared with all other Principal Investigators with respect to Grant Impact Metric (15.1 vs 20.6; P = .19) and publications per $1 million (7.5 vs 6.8; P = .75). Finally, all physician-scientists (MDs) have a significantly higher Grant Impact Metric compared with nonclinician researchers (non-MDs) (22.3 vs 16.3; P = .028). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeon-scientists are equally productive and impactful compared with nonsurgeons despite decreasing funding rates at the National Institutes of Health and greater pressure from administrators to increase clinical productivity.

Outcomes of non-elective coronary artery bypass grafting performed on weekends.

OBJECTIVES: A weekend effect with increased mortality has previously been reported in surgical patients and those with acute myocardial infarction (MI). We hypothesized that a similar phenomenon may exist in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: Patients undergoing non-elective isolated CABG (2011-2017) were included from a multicentre regional Society of Thoracic Surgeons database. Patients were stratified by weekend versus weekday operations and further analysed by specific day of the week. RESULTS: A total of 14 374 patients underwent urgent or emergency isolated CABG with 410 (2.9%) operated on over the weekend. Weekend operations were more often emergency (36.1% vs 5.0%, P < 0.001) and more likely to be in the setting of MI (70.0% vs 51.2%, P < 0.001). Cardiopulmonary bypass times were similar [91 min (71-114) vs 94 min (74-117), P = 0.0749] and the frequency of complete revascularization equivalent (83.4% vs 85.3%, P = 0.284) between weekend and weekday operations. In risk-adjusted analyses, there was no increased odds for mortality in patients operated on over the weekend [odds ratio (OR) 1.07, P = 0.811]; however, there was an increased odds of major morbidity (OR 1.37, P = 0.034). Furthermore, compared with Monday, morbidity increased as the operative day approached the weekend (Tuesday 0.98, P = 0.828; Wednesday 1.07, P = 0.469; Thursday 1.12, P = 0.229; Friday 1.19, P = 0.041; weekend 1.47, P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: While patients requiring surgery on the weekend are higher risk, there is no independent effect of weekend surgery on mortality. However, these patients are at increased risk for major morbidity, the causes of which require further investigation.

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.

Distressed communities are associated with worse outcomes after coronary artery bypass surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Although low socioeconomic status has been associated with increased risk of complications after cardiac surgery, analyses have typically focused on insurance status, race, or median income. We sought to determine if the Distressed Communities Index, a composite socioeconomic metric, could predict operative mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting. METHODS: All patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (2011-2018) in the National Society of Thoracic Surgeons adult cardiac surgery database were analyzed. Clinical data were paired with the Distressed Communities Index, which accounts for unemployment, education level, poverty rate, median income, business growth, and housing vacancies by ZIP code. Developed by the Economic Innovation Group, Distressed Communities Index scores range from 0 (no distress) to 100 (severe distress). A distressed community was defined as one having a Distressed Communities Index of 75 or greater for univariate analyses. RESULTS: Of the 575,900 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting with a Distressed Communities Index score, the median age was 65 years. The operative mortality rate was 2.0%, and the composite morbidity or mortality rate was 11.5%. Distressed communities were associated with increased Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality (1.97% vs 1.85%, P < .0001) and risk of composite morbidity or mortality (12.8% vs 11.7%, P < .0001). After adjusting for Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk model, the Distressed Communities Index remained significantly associated with mortality (odds ratio, 1.12; P < .0001) and composite morbidity and mortality (odds ratio, 1.03; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Patients from distressed communities are at increased risk for adverse events and death after coronary artery bypass grafting. The Distressed Communities Index is a useful, holistic measure of socioeconomic status that may help identify high-risk patients for quality improvement and should be considered when building risk models or comparing hospitals.

Community level socioeconomic status association with surgical outcomes and resource utilisation in a regional cohort: a prospective registry analysis.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic status affects surgical outcomes, however these factors are not included in clinical quality improvement data and risk models. We performed a prospective registry analysis to determine if the Distressed Communities Index (DCI), a composite socioeconomic ranking by zip code, could predict risk-adjusted surgical outcomes and resource utilisation. METHODS: All patients undergoing surgery (n=44,451) in a regional quality improvement database (American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program ACS-NSQIP) were paired with DCI, ranging from 0-100 (low to high distress) and accounting for unemployment, education level, poverty rate, median income, business growth and housing vacancies. The top quartile of distress was compared to the remainder of the cohort and a mixed effects modeling evaluated ACS-NSQIP risk-adjusted association between DCI and the primary outcomes of surgical complications and resource utilisation. RESULTS: A total of 9369 (21.1%) patients came from severely distressed communities (DCI >75), who had higher rates of most medical comorbidities as well as transfer status (8.4% vs 4.8%, p<0.0001) resulting in higher ACS-NSQIP predicted risk of any complication (8.0% vs 7.1%, p<0.0001). Patients from severely distressed communities had increased 30-day mortality (1.8% vs 1.4%, p=0.01), postoperative complications (9.8% vs 8.5%, p<0.0001), hospital readmission (7.7 vs 6.8, p<0.0001) and resource utilisation. DCI was independently associated with postoperative complications (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.10, p<0.0001) as well as resource utilisation after adjusting for ACS-NSQIP predicted risk CONCLUSION: Increasing Distressed Communities Index is associated with increased postoperative complications and resource utilisation even after ACS-NSQIP risk adjustment. These findings demonstrate a disparity in surgical outcomes based on community level socioeconomic factors, highlighting the continued need for public health innovation and policy initiatives.

Cost-Effectiveness of Postoperative Drug Rehabilitation for Injection Drug Users.

BACKGROUND: With the opioid crisis showing no sign of abating, strategies are needed to facilitate postoperative care for endocarditis related to injection drug use (IDU). The current standard, 6 weeks of intravenous antibiotics, yields frequent reoperation and IDU relapse. We examined the cost-effectiveness of inpatient drug rehabilitation (DR) postoperatively to optimize outcomes and costs. METHODS: Two postoperative strategies were assessed: hospital-only care (HC) vs HC plus inpatient DR. Monte Carlo simulation evaluated effectiveness in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) and cost per patient calculated over a 20-year time horizon in 100,000 iterations. Willingness to pay was set to $100,000/QALY. To determine probabilities of continued postoperative IDU, recurrent infection, and death, best available evidence was combined with institutional data from IDU patients. Baseline probability of postoperative IDU was set to 35% after DR vs 60% after HC, and the cost of inpatient rehabilitation to $30,000. RESULTS: Addition of inpatient DR to standard HC is the favorable strategy, with incremental per-patient cost of $36,920 and 0.93 QALYs gained over 20 years. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates DR is within our willingness-to-pay of $100,000/QALY if postoperative IDU is reduced by at least 7% (from 60% to 53%). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of postoperative inpatient DR for IDU-related endocarditis is cost-effective even if only a modest reduction in IDU is achieved. Collaboration between hospitals and payors to launch pilot programs that provide postoperative addiction treatment and intravenous antibiotics after cardiac operations could dramatically improve endocarditis care.