Concomitant Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation in Isolated Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

BACKGROUND: Societal guidelines support concomitant management of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. To assess real-world adoption and outcomes, this study evaluated Medicare beneficiaries with AF who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with surgical ablation (SA) or left atrial appendage obliteration (LAAO) or both procedures in combination (SA + LAAO). METHODS: The US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services inpatient claims database identified all patients with AF who underwent isolated CABG from 2018 to 2020. Diagnosis-related group and International Classification of Diseases-10th revision procedure codes defined covariates for doubly robust risk adjustment. RESULTS: A total of 19,524 patients with preoperative AF who underwent isolated CABG were stratified by SA + LAAO (3475 patients; 17.8%), LAAO only (4541 patients; 23.3%), or no AF treatment (11,508 patients; 58.9%). After doubly robust risk adjustment, longitudinal analysis highlighted that concomitant AF treatment with SA + LAAO (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; P = .049) or LAAO alone (HR, 0.75; P = . 031) was associated with a significant reduction in readmission for stroke at 3 years compared with no AF treatment. Furthermore, SA + LAAO (HR, 0.86; P = .016) but not LAAO alone (HR, 0.97; P = .573) was associated with improved survival compared with no AF treatment. Finally, SA + LAAO was associated with a superior composite outcome of freedom from stroke or death at 3 years compared with LAAO alone (HR, 0.86;, P = .033) or no AF treatment (HR, 0.81; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In Medicare beneficiaries with AF who underwent isolated CABG, concomitant AF treatment was associated with reduced 3-year readmission for stroke. SA + LAAO was associated with superior reduction in stroke or death at 3 years compared with LAAO alone or no AF treatment.

Contemporary Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting vs Multivessel Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Interpretation of recent alterations to the guideline priority of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for multivessel disease contests historical data and practice. To reevaluate contemporary outcomes, a large contemporary analysis was conducted comparing CABG with multivessel PCI among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: The United States Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services database was evaluated all beneficiaries with acute coronary syndrome undergoing isolated CABG or multivessel PCI (2018-2020). Risk adjustment was performed using multilevel regression analysis, Cox proportional hazards time to event models, and inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity scores. RESULTS: A total of 104,127 beneficiaries were identified undergoing CABG (n = 51,389) or multivessel PCI (n = 52,738). Before risk adjustment, compared with PCI, CABG patients were associated with younger age (72.9 vs 75.2 years, P < .001), higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (5.0 vs 4.2, P < .001), more diabetes (48.5% vs 42.2%, P < .001), higher cost ($54,154 vs $33,484, P < .001), and longer length of stay (11.9 vs 5.8 days, P < .001). After inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score adjustment, compared with PCI, CABG was associated with lower hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.74; P < .001), fewer hospital readmissions at 3 years (odds ratio, 0.85; P < .001), fewer coronary reinterventions (hazard ratio, 0.37; P < .001), and improved 3-year survival (hazard ratio, 0.51; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary real-world data from Medicare patients with multivessel disease reveal that CABG outcomes were superior to PCI, providing important longitudinal data to guide patient care and policy development.

Long term employment following heart transplantation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Employment is an important metric of post-transplant functional status and the quality of life yet remains poorly described after heart transplant. We sought to characterize the prevalence of employment following heart transplantation and identify patients at risk for post-transplant unemployment. METHODS: Adults undergoing single-organ heart transplantation (2007-2016) were evaluated using the UNOS database. Univariable analysis was performed after stratifying by employment status at 1-year post-transplant. Fine-Gray competing risk regression was used for risk adjustment. Cox regression evaluated employment status at 1 year with mortality. RESULTS: Of 10,132 heart transplant recipients who survived to 1 year and had follow-up, 22.0% were employed 1-year post-transplant. Employment rate of survivors increased to 32.9% by year 2. Employed individuals were more likely white (70.8% vs 60.4%, p < 0.01), male (79.6% vs 70.7% p < 0.01), held a job at listing/transplant (37.6% vs 7.6%, p < 0.01), and had private insurance (79.1% vs 49.5%, p < 0.01). Several characteristics were independently associated with employment including age, employment status at time of listing or transplant, race and ethnicity, gender, insurance status, education, and postoperative complications. Of 1,657 (14.0%) patients employed pretransplant, 58% were working at 1-year. Employment at 1year was independently associated with mortality with employed individuals having a 26% decreased risk of mortality. CONCLUSION: Over 20% of heart transplant patients were employed at 1 year and over 30% at 2 years, while 58% of those working pretransplant had returned to work by 1-year. While the major predictor of post-transplant employment is preoperative employment status, our study highlights the impact of social determinants of health.

The impact of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery on National Institutes of Health grant funding for cardiothoracic surgeons.

OBJECTIVES: The American Association for Thoracic Surgery, through its annual meeting, pilot grant funding, Scientific Affairs and Government Relations Committee activity, and academic development programs (Grant Writing Workshop, Clinical Trials Course, Innovation Summit), has aimed to develop the research careers of cardiothoracic surgeons. We hypothesized that American Association for Thoracic Surgery activities have helped increase National Institutes of Health grants awarded to cardiothoracic surgeons. METHODS: A database of 1869 academic cardiothoracic surgeons in the United States was created in December 2020. National Institutes of Health grant records from 1985 to 2020 were obtained for each surgeon using National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results. Analyses were normalized to the number of active surgeons per year, based on the year of each surgeon's earliest research publication on Scopus. RESULTS: A total of 346 cardiothoracic surgeons have received 696 National Institutes of Health grants totaling more than $1.5 billion in funding, with 48 surgeons actively serving as principal investigator of 66 R01 grants in 2020. The prevalence of research grants (7.4 vs 5.6 grants per 100 active surgeons, P < .0001), percentage of surgeons with a research grant (5.3% vs 4.7%, P = .0342), and number of research grants per funded surgeon (1.4 vs 1.2 grants, P < .0001) were significantly greater during the Scientific Affairs and Government Relations era (2003-2020) than the pre-Scientific Affairs and Government Relations era (1985-2002). The incidence of new research grants after surgeon participation in an American Association for Thoracic Surgery academic development program was significantly greater than that in the absence of participation (3.5 vs 1.1 new grants per 100 surgeons per year, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Through dedicated efforts and programs, the American Association for Thoracic Surgery has provided effective support to help increase National Institutes of Health grant funding awarded to cardiothoracic surgeons.

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.

Influence of broader geographic allograft sharing on outcomes and cost in smaller lung transplant centers.

OBJECTIVE: On November 24, 2017, Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network implemented a change to lung allocation replacing donor service area with a 250 nautical mile radius around donor hospitals. We sought to evaluate the experience of a small to medium size center following implementation. METHODS: Patients (47 pre and 54 post) undergoing lung transplantation were identified from institutional database from January 2016 to October 2019. Detailed chart review and analysis of institutional cost data was performed. Univariate analysis was performed to compare eras. RESULTS: Similar short-term mortality and primary graft dysfunction were observed between groups. Decreased local donation (68% vs 6%; P < .001), increased travel distance (145 vs 235 miles; P = .004), travel cost ($8626 vs $14,482; P < .001), and total procurement cost ($60,852 vs $69,052; P = .001) were observed postimplementation. We also document an increase in waitlist mortality postimplementation (6.9 vs 31.6 per 100 patient-years; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Following implementation of the new allocation policy in a small to medium size center, several changes were in accordance with policy intention. However, concerning shifts emerged, including increased waitlist mortality and resource utilization. Continued close monitoring of transplant centers stratified by size and location are paramount to maintaining global availability of lung transplantation to all Americans regardless of geographic residence or socioeconomic status.

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.

Interviews During the Pandemic: A Thoracic Education Cooperative Group and Surgery Residents Project.

BACKGROUND: The 2020 interview cycle for cardiothoracic fellowships was affected by the coronavirus-19 pandemic. Many programs shifted from in-person to virtual interviews. We evaluated applicant perceptions of the various formats. METHODS: All 2019-2020 cardiothoracic fellowship applicants received an electronic survey after completion of the match process. The survey assessed number of in-person/virtual interviews completed, perception of efficacy, and likelihood of ranking a program based on format, and strengths/inadequacies of virtual interviews. RESULTS: Response rate was 36% (48 of 133). Seventy-three percent of respondents (35 of 48) interviewed with more than 10 programs. Fifty-two percent of respondents (25 of 48) were able to schedule additional interviews once virtual formats were available. A slight majority (56%, 27 of 48) ranked a program at which they had an in-person interview as their first choice. Interviewing at more than 10 programs was associated with an increased likelihood of successfully matching at a program (P = .02). Overwhelmingly, respondents favored an in-person component to the interview process (96%, 46 of 48). Few respondents (29%, 14 of 48) thought they could adequately evaluate a program virtually. The factors that had the highest percentages of adequate portrayal during virtual interviews were the didactic schedule/curriculum (81%, 39 of 48) and case number/autonomy (58%, 28 of 48). The factors with the lowest percentages were culture/personality (19%, 9 of 48) and city/lifestyle (15%, 7 of 48). CONCLUSIONS: Applicants strongly favored an in-person component to interviews, highlighting potential deficiencies in the virtual interview process. Programs should consider the addition of virtual tours of their hospitals, narrations from staff, and vignettes from current fellows about lifestyle and well-being.

Applicant perception of virtual interviews in cardiothoracic surgery: A Thoracic Education Cooperative Group Study.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiothoracic programs used virtual interviews exclusively this year. As programs consider using virtual interviews permanently, our goal was to evaluate the experience of applicants with virtual interviews. METHODS: All 2020-2021 traditional cardiothoracic fellowship applicants received an anonymous electronic survey after the Match process ended. The survey assessed the number of interviews, strengths, and inadequacies of virtual interviews and factors that affected rank decision. RESULTS: Forty-three percent of applicants responded (60/139). The average number of interviews was 16.0. Eighty percent (48/60) of respondents successfully matched. Eighty-seven percent (52/60) of respondents had a favorable experience with virtual interviews, and 97% (58/60) found them to be convenient. However, only 50% (30/60) were able to evaluate a program fully. Respondents who matched were more likely to have a favorable experience (P = .02), but not more likely to be able to evaluate a program fully (P = .35). The most valued aspect was the informal meet and greet session with fellows (4.2 of 5). The least valued aspect was the program's social media site (2.0 of 5). The factors most frequently used to decide ranking were case numbers by 92% (55/60) and culture/personality by 82% (49/60). CONCLUSIONS: Virtual interviews were perceived more favorably compared with last year, but half of applicants were still unable to evaluate a program fully. Fellow interactions were the most popular aspect of virtual interviews. As programs consider using virtual interviews permanently, more exposure to current trainees and a more robust social media/online presence will improve favorability.

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.

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.

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.

Development and Evolution of the Thoracic Surgery Residents Association.

The Thoracic Surgery Residents Association (TSRA) was established in 1997 as a trainee-led organization under the guidance of the Thoracic Surgery Directors Association (TSDA) to represent the interests and meet the educational needs of cardiothoracic surgery residents across North America. Since its founding, the TSRA has continuously evolved and expanded to further its primary mission. In addition to now offering text- and audio-based educational resources, the TSRA acts to connect students, trainees, and faculty, with the ultimate goal of fostering relationships that will benefit not only individuals but also the field of cardiothoracic surgery as a whole.

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.

The Changing Face of Academic Surgery: Overrepresentation of Women among Surgeon-Scientists with R01 Funding.

BACKGROUND: There has been a recent focus on sex-based disparities within the field of academic surgery. However, the proportion of female surgeons conducting NIH-funded research is unknown. STUDY DESIGN: The NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results) was queried for R01 grants from surgery departments for which the principal investigator (PI) had a primary medical degree, as of October 2018. Characteristics of the PI and their respective grants were collected. Institutional faculty profiles were reviewed for PI and departmental characteristics. PIs were stratified by sex and compared using standard univariate statistics. RESULTS: There were a total of 212 R01 grants in surgery departments held by 159 PIs. Of these, 26.4% (n = 42) of R01-funded surgeons were female compared with the reported 19% of academic surgery female faculty (as reported by the Association of American Medical Colleges; p = 0.02). Women with R01 grants were more likely to be first-time grant recipients with no concurrent or previous NIH funding (21.4% vs 8.6%; p = 0.03) and less likely to have a previous R01 or equivalent grant (54.8% vs 73.5%; p = 0.03). Women were more likely to be from departments with a female surgery chair (31.0% vs 13.7%; p = 0.01) or a department with > 30% female surgeons (35.0% vs 18.2%; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Although female surgeons remain a minority in academic surgery, they hold a greater than anticipated proportion of NIH funding, with a high number of first-time grants, forming a crucial component of the next generation of surgeon-scientists.

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.