Long-term Mortality and Reintervention After Repair of Ruptured Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Using VQI-matched Medicare Claims.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) versus open aortic repair (OAR) on mortality and reintervention after ruptured infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (rAAA) repair in the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI). BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment modality for rAAA remains debated, with little data on long-term comparisons. METHODS: VQI rAAA repairs (2004-2018) were matched with Medicare claims (VQI-VISION). Primary outcomes were in-hospital and long-term mortality. Secondary outcome was reintervention. Inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for treatment selection, and Cox Proportional Hazards models and negative binomial regressions were used for analysis. Landmark analysis was performed among patients surviving hospital discharge. RESULTS: Among 1885 VQI/Medicare rAAA patients, 790 underwent OAR, and 1095 underwent EVAR. Median age was 76 years; 73% were male. Inverse probability weighting produced comparable groups. In-hospital mortality was lower after EVAR versus OAR (21% vs 37%, odds ratio: 0.52, 95% CI, 0.4-0.7). One-year mortality rates were lower for EVAR versus OAR [hazard ratio (HR) 0.74, 95% CI, 0.6-0.9], but not statistically different after 1 year (HR: 0.95, 95% CI, 0.8-1.2). This implies additional benefits to EVAR in the short term. Reintervention rates were higher after EVAR than OAR at 2 and 5 years (rate ratio: 1.79 95% CI, 1.2-2.7 and rate ratio:2.03 95% CI, 1.4-3.0), but not within the first year. Reintervention was associated with higher mortality risk for both OAR (HR: 1.66 95% CI, 1.1-2.5) and EVAR (HR: 2.14 95% CI, 1.6-2.9). Long-term mortality was similar between repair types (HR: 0.99, 95% CI, 0.8-1.2). CONCLUSIONS: Within VQI/Medicare patients undergoing rAAA repair, the perioperative mortality rate favors EVAR but equalizes after 1 year. Reinterventions were more common after EVAR and were associated with higher mortality regardless of treatment.

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass is safe in elderly patients: a propensity-score matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have established the effectiveness of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) for weight loss and co-morbidity amelioration. However, its safety and efficacy in elderly patients remains controversial. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate outcomes in patients aged ≥60 years who underwent RYGB compared with nonsurgical controls with the hypothesis that RYGB provides weight loss benefits without differences in survival. SETTING: University-affiliated tertiary center. METHODS: All patients who underwent RYGB from 1985 to 2015 were identified and divided into elderly (age ≥60) and nonelderly (age <60) groups. A nonsurgical elderly control population was identified using a clinical data repository of outpatient visits to propensity match elderly patients 4:1 on demographic characteristics, co-morbidities, and relevant preoperative substance/medication use. Unpaired appropriate univariate analyses compared each stratified group. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were fitted based on social security death data. RESULTS: A total of 2306 patients underwent RYGB. The 107 elderly patients had lower median body mass index (47.0 versus 49.9; P = .007) and higher rates of co-morbidities. Rates of complications did not differ between elderly and nonelderly patients. Elderly surgical patients were propensity matched 4:1 (10,044 controls) yielding 428 well-matched nonsurgical controls. The elderly group demonstrated significant percent reduction in excess body mass index compared with the control group (81.8% versus 10.3%; P < .001). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with log-rank test demonstrated no difference in midterm survival (P = .63). CONCLUSIONS: A significant weight reduction benefit was identified after RYGB in elderly patients without a difference in midterm survival compared with propensity-matched controls, suggesting RYGB is a safe and efficacious weight loss strategy in the elderly.

Outcomes for Low-Risk Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Benchmark for Aortic Valve Technology.

BACKGROUND: Two large, randomized trials are underway evaluating transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) against conventional surgical AVR. We analyzed contemporary, real-world outcomes of surgical AVR in low-risk patients to provide a practical benchmark of outcomes and cost for evaluating current and future transapical AVR technology. METHODS: From 2010 to 2015, 2,505 isolated AVR operations were performed for severe aortic stenosis at 18 statewide cardiac institutions. Of these, 2,138 patients had a Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality of less than 4%, and 1,119 met other clinical and hemodynamic criteria as outlined in the PARTNER 3 (The Placement of Transcatheter Aortic Valves) protocol. Patients with endocarditis, end-stage renal disease, ejection fraction of less than 0.45, bicuspid valves, and previous valve replacements were excluded. Outcomes of interest included operative death and postoperative adverse events. RESULTS: The median Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality for the study-eligible patients was 1.44%, with a median age of 72 years (interquartile range [IQR], 65 to 78 years). Operative mortality was 1.3%, permanent stroke was 1.3%, and pacemaker requirement was 4.2%. The most common adverse events were transfusion of 2 or more units of red blood cells (18%) and atrial fibrillation (28%). The median length of stay was 6 days (IQR, 5 to 8 days). Median total hospital cost was $37,999 (IQR, $30,671 to $46,138). Examination of complications by age younger than 65 vs 65 or older demonstrated a significantly lower need for transfusion (11.2%, p < 0.001) and incidence of atrial fibrillation (17.1%, p < 0.001) but no difference in operative mortality (2.2% vs 0.9%, p = 0.1), major morbidity (10.4% vs 12.6%, p = 0.3), or total hospital costs. CONCLUSIONS: Low-risk patients undergoing surgical AVR in the current era have excellent results. The most common complications were atrial fibrillation and bleeding. These real-world results should provide additional context for upcoming transcatheter clinical trial data.

Impact of Medicaid Expansion on Cardiac Surgery Volume and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Thirty-one states approved Medicaid expansion after implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of Medicaid expansion on cardiac surgery volume and outcomes comparing one state that expanded to one that did not. METHODS: Data from the Virginia (nonexpansion state) Cardiac Services Quality Initiative and the Michigan (expanded Medicaid, April 2014) Society of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeons Quality Collaborative were analyzed to identify uninsured and Medicaid patients undergoing coronary bypass graft or valve operations, or both. Demographics, operative details, predicted risk scores, and morbidity and mortality rates, stratified by state and compared across era (preexpansion: 18 months before vs postexpansion: 18 months after), were analyzed. RESULTS: In Virginia, there were no differences in volume between eras, whereas in Michigan, there was a significant increase in Medicaid volume (54.4% [558 of 1,026] vs 84.1% [954 of 1,135], p < 0.001) and a corresponding decrease in uninsured volume. In Virginia Medicaid patients, there were no differences in predicted risk of morbidity or mortality or postoperative major morbidities. In Michigan Medicaid patients, a significant decrease in predicted risk of morbidity or mortality (11.9% [8.1% to 20.0%] vs 11.1% [7.7% to 17.9%], p = 0.02) and morbidities (18.3% [102 of 558] vs 13.2% [126 of 954], p = 0.008) was identified. Postexpansion was associated with a decreased risk-adjusted rate of major morbidity (odds ratio, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.51 to 0.91; p = 0.01) in Michigan Medicaid patients. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid expansion was associated with fewer uninsured cardiac surgery patients and improved predicted risk scores and morbidity rates. In addition to improving health care financing, Medicaid expansion may positively affect patient care and outcomes.

Impact of Transcatheter Technology on Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Volume, Outcomes, and Cost.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) represents a disruptive technology that is rapidly expanding in use. We evaluated the effect on surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) patient selection, outcomes, volume, and cost. METHODS: A total of 11,565 patients who underwent SAVR, with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (2002 to 2015), were evaluated from the Virginia Cardiac Services Quality Initiative database. Patients were stratified by surgical era: pre-TAVR era (2002 to 2008, n = 5,113), early-TAVR era (2009 to 2011, n = 2,709), and commercial-TAVR era (2012 to 2015, n = 3,743). Patient characteristics, outcomes, and resource utilization were analyzed by univariate analyses. RESULTS: Throughout the study period, statewide SAVR volumes increased with median volumes of pre-TAVR: 722 cases/year, early-TAVR: 892 cases/year, and commercial-TAVR: 940 cases/year (p = 0.005). Implementation of TAVR was associated with declining Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality among SAVR patients (3.7%, 2.6%, and 2.4%; p < 0.0001), despite increasing rates of comorbid disease. The mortality rate was lowest in the current commercial-TAVR era (3.9%, 4.3%, and 3.2%; p = 0.05), and major morbidity decreased throughout the time period (21.2%, 20.5%, and 15.2%; p < 0.0001). The lowest observed-to-expected ratios for both occurred in the commercial-TAVR era (0.9 and 0.9, respectively). Resource utilization increased generally, including total cost increases from $42,835 to $51,923 to $54,710 (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: At present, SAVR volumes have not been affected by the introduction of TAVR. The outcomes for SAVR continue to improve, potentially due to availability of transcatheter options for high-risk patients. Despite rising costs for SAVR, open approaches still provide a significant cost advantage over TAVR.

Minimally Invasive Mitral Valve Surgery Provides Excellent Outcomes Without Increased Cost: A Multi-Institutional Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive mitral valve surgery (mini-MVR) has grown in popularity. Although single centers have reported excellent outcomes, data on real-world outcomes and costs of mini-MVR are limited. Moreover, mini-MVR has been criticized as adding additional cost without clear benefit. We hypothesized that mini-MVR provides superior outcomes with incremental increased costs in a multi-institutional cohort. METHODS: Records for patients undergoing mitral valve surgical procedures with or without atrial ablation from 2011 to 2014 were extracted from a multi-institutional, regional Society of Thoracic Surgeons database and stratified according to right chest approach/minimally invasive or conventional sternotomy. Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or other concomitant procedures were excluded. Patients undergoing isolated mitral surgical procedure were propensity matched according to factors, including age, comorbidities, and preoperative laboratory values; clinical outcomes and cost differences were assessed by approach. RESULTS: A total of 1,304 patients underwent mitral operations, including 425 (32.6%) by minimally invasive approach. In the propensity-matched analysis (n = 355 per group), patients undergoing mini-MVR had similar rates of mortality, stroke, and other complications compared with conventional MVR. Meanwhile, patients with mini-MVR experienced shorter intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay and fewer transfusions. Importantly, total hospital costs were no different between the two matched groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with conventional sternotomy, mini-MVR in the "real world" demonstrated no differences in rates of major morbidity, but it was associated with shorter length of stay and fewer transfusions. Contrary to our hypothesis, mini-MVR can be performed with similar total hospital costs as conventional sternotomy. In summary, minimally invasive mitral surgical procedure in select patients can provide superior outcomes without increased cost.