Unplanned readmissions, community socioeconomic factors, and their effects on long-term survival after complex thoracic aortic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated community socioeconomic factors in patients who had unplanned readmission after undergoing proximal aortic surgery (ascending aorta, aortic root, or arch). METHODS: Unplanned readmissions for any reason within 60 days of the index procedure were reviewed by race, acuity at presentation, and gender. We also evaluated 3 community socioeconomic factors: poverty, household income, and education. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to assess long-term survival differences by group (race, acuity, and gender). RESULTS: Among 2339 patients who underwent proximal aortic surgery during the 20-year study period and were discharged alive, our team identified 146 (6.2%) unplanned readmissions. Compared with White patients, Black patients lived in areas characterized by more widespread poverty (20.8% vs 11.1%; P = .0003), lower income ($42,776 vs $65,193; P = .0007), and fewer residents with a high school diploma (73.7% vs 90.1%; P < .0001). Compared with patients whose index operation was elective, patients who had urgent or emergency index procedures lived in areas with lower income ($54,425 vs $64,846; P = .01) and fewer residents with a high school diploma (81.1% vs 89.2%; P = .005). Community socioeconomic factors did not differ by gender. Four- and 6-year survival estimates were 63.1% and 63.1% for Black patients versus 89.1% and 83.0% for White patients (P = .0009). No significant differences by acuity or gender were found. CONCLUSIONS: Among readmitted patients, Black patients and patients who had emergency surgery had less favorable community socioeconomic factors and poorer long-term survival. Earlier and more frequent follow-up in these patients should be considered. Developing off-campus clinics and specific postdischarge measures targeting these patients is important.

Socioeconomic disparities in procedural choice and outcomes after aortic valve replacement.

Objective: To identify potential socioeconomic disparities in the procedural choice of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) versus transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and in readmission outcomes after SAVR or TAVR. Methods: The Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried to identify a total of 243,691 patients who underwent isolated SAVR and TAVR between January 2016 and December 2018. Patients were stratified according to a tiered socioeconomic status (SES) metric comprising patient factors including education, literacy, housing, employment, insurance status, and neighborhood median income. Multivariable analyses were used to assess the effect of SES on procedural choice and risk-adjusted readmission outcomes. Results: SAVR (41.4%; 100,833 of 243,619) was performed less frequently than TAVR (58.6%; 142,786 of 243,619). Lower SES was more frequent among patients undergoing SAVR (20.2% [20,379 of 100,833] vs 19.4% [27,791 of 142,786]; P < .001). Along with such variables as small hospital size, drug abuse, arrhythmia, and obesity, lower SES was independently associated with SAVR relative to TAVR (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11 to 1.24). After SAVR, but not after TAVR, lower SES was independently associated with increased readmission at 30 days (aOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.07-1.32), 90 days (aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.15-1.41), and 1 year (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.28; P < .05 for all). Conclusions: Our study findings indicate that socioeconomic disparities exist in the procedural choice for patients undergoing AVR. Patients with lower SES had increased odds of undergoing SAVR, as well as increased odds of readmission after SAVR, but not after TAVR, supporting that health inequities exist in the surgical care of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients.

Cannulation Strategy for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Does Not Influence Total Hospital Cost.

BACKGROUND: The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services decreased reimbursement rates for peripheral venoarterial (VA) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and venovenous (VV) ECMO procedures in October 2018. Limited data are available describing hospital costs and clinical resources required to support ECMO patients. METHODS: All patients supported on ECMO at our institution between March 2017 and October 2018 were identified. Exclusion criteria were cannulation at referring hospitals, organ transplant recipients, and temporary right ventricular support. The cohort was stratified by the initial cannulation strategy. Outcomes were total hospital cost and clinical resource utilization. RESULTS: There were 29 patients supported on central VA, 72 on peripheral VA, and 37 on VV ECMO. Survival at 30 days was 48% for central vs 37% for peripheral vs 51% for VV. Hospital costs were $187,848 for central vs $178,069 for peripheral vs $172,994 for VV (P = .91). Mean hospital stay was 25.8 days for central vs 21.5 days for peripheral vs 26.2 days for VV (P = .49). Mean intensive care unit stay was 14.1 days for central vs 12.8 days for peripheral vs 7.7 days for VV (P = .25). Mean length of ECMO support was 6.5 days for central vs 6.2 days for peripheral vs 7.8 days for VV (P = .38). Mean ventilator time was 13.0 days for central vs 8.2 days for peripheral vs 10.0 days for VV (P = .06). Hemodialysis was used in 41% central patients, 47% peripheral, and 41% VV (P = .75). Theoretical ECMO reimbursement losses ranged from $1,970,698 to $5,648,219 annually under 2018 Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services rates. CONCLUSIONS: ECMO cannulation strategy has minimal impact on resource utilization and hospital cost.

Disparity between recent graduates' and experienced surgeons' assessment of time to operative independence.

BACKGROUND: In cardiothoracic surgery, little data exist on the transition to operative independence. We aimed to compare current perceptions of operative autonomy of junior cardiothoracic surgeons and senior colleagues who oversee transitional years. METHODS: An anonymous online survey was sent to currently practicing North American board-certified/eligible cardiothoracic surgeons to assess reported time to operative independence and comfort with cardiothoracic operations. The χ2 test, Fisher exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare junior surgeons' self-reported experience to the junior experience as reported by the midcareer and senior surgeons with whom they practiced. Logistic regression was performed to assess factors associated with operative independence. RESULTS: Responses from 436 completed surveys were analyzed (82 juniors and 354 midcareer/seniors). Two hundred fifty-four midcareer/senior surgeons reported on the experience of 531 junior partners. Juniors reported high immediate posttraining comfort with basic cardiac cases and moderate comfort with all other categories. Time to operative independence was significantly different between juniors' self-report and midcareer/senior reports of junior partners except for complex thoracic cases. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, senior, and not midcareer, surgeon status was independently associated with junior operative independence status for cardiac cases and for basic thoracic cases. CONCLUSIONS: Most junior surgeons perceived operative independence with basic thoracic, basic cardiac, and complex cardiac operations earlier in their surgical career than that reported by senior colleagues. Objective measures of operative independence may clarify this discrepancy. This study establishes a baseline by which to compare the effects of integrated 6-year programs on operative independence. The discrepant perceptions may have implications for how training programs prepare graduates for the transition to independent practice.

Long-Term Survival Prediction for Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Validation of the ASCERT Model Compared With The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality.

BACKGROUND: The recently developed American College of Cardiology Foundation-Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Collaboration on the Comparative Effectiveness of Revascularization Strategy (ASCERT) Long-Term Survival Probability Calculator is a valuable addition to existing short-term risk-prediction tools for cardiac surgical procedures but has yet to be externally validated. METHODS: Institutional data of 654 patients aged 65 years or older undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting between 2005 and 2010 were reviewed. Predicted survival probabilities were calculated using the ASCERT model. Survival data were collected using the Social Security Death Index and institutional medical records. Model calibration and discrimination were assessed for the overall sample and for risk-stratified subgroups based on (1) ASCERT 7-year survival probability and (2) the predicted risk of mortality (PROM) from the STS Short-Term Risk Calculator. Logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate additional perioperative variables contributing to death. RESULTS: Overall survival was 92.1% (569 of 597) at 1 year and 50.5% (164 of 325) at 7 years. Calibration assessment found no significant differences between predicted and actual survival curves for the overall sample or for the risk-stratified subgroups, whether stratified by predicted 7-year survival or by PROM. Discriminative performance was comparable between the ASCERT and PROM models for 7-year survival prediction (p < 0.001 for both; C-statistic = 0.815 for ASCERT and 0.781 for PROM). Prolonged ventilation, stroke, and hospital length of stay were also predictive of long-term death. CONCLUSIONS: The ASCERT survival probability calculator was externally validated for prediction of long-term survival after coronary artery bypass grafting in all risk groups. The widely used STS PROM performed comparably as a predictor of long-term survival. Both tools provide important information for preoperative decision making and patient counseling about potential outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting.

Learning Alternative Access Approaches for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Implications for New Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Centers.

BACKGROUND: Smaller transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) delivery systems have increased the number of patients eligible for transfemoral procedures while decreasing the need for transaortic (TAo) or transapical (TA) access. As a result, newer TAVR centers are likely to have less exposure to these alternative access techniques, making it harder to achieve proficiency. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the learning curve for TAVR approaches and compare perioperative outcomes. METHODS: From January 2008 to December 2014, 400 patients underwent TAVR (transfemoral, n = 179; TA, n = 120; and TAo, n = 101)). Learning curves were constructed using metrics of contrast utilization, procedural, and fluoroscopy times. Outcomes during the learning curve were compared with after proficiency was achieved. RESULTS: Depending on the metric, learning curves for all three routes differed slightly but all demonstrated proficiency by the 50th case. There were no significant differences in procedural times whereas improvements in contrast use were most notable for TA (69 ± 40 mL versus 50 ± 23 mL, p = 0.002). For both TA and TAo, fewer patients received transfusions once proficiency was reached (62% versus 34%, p = 0.003, and 42% versus 14%, p = 0.002, respectively). No differences in 30-day or 1-year mortality were seen before or after proficiency was reached for any approach. CONCLUSIONS: The learning curves for TA and TAo are distinct but technical proficiency begins to develop by 25 cases and becomes complete by 50 cases for both approaches. Given the relatively low volume of alternative access, achieving technical proficiency may take significant time. However, technical proficiency had no effect on 30-day or 1-year mortality for any access approach.