Outcomes and Direct Cost of Isolated Nonemergent CABG in Patients With Low Ejection Fraction.

OBJECTIVE: Preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is one of the main predictors of outcomes in cardiac surgery. We present current era outcomes and associated direct cost in nonemergent isolated coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) patients with LVEF <20% over the past 6 years and compare it with higher EF subgroups. METHODS: Six-year data from 2016 to 2022 at hospitals sharing Society of Thoracic Surgeons and financial data with Biome Analytics were analyzed based on 3 EF subgroups (EF ≤20%, EF 21% to 35%, and EF >35%). Outcomes and costs were assessed. RESULTS: Overall 30-day mortality of 12,649 patients was 1.9%. The EF ≤20% (n = 248), EF 21% to 35% (n = 1,408), and EF >35 (n = 10,993) cohorts had mortality of 6.9%, 3.7%, and 1.6%, respectively. The EF ≤20% subgroup had higher use of cardiopulmonary bypass, blood products, and mechanical support. In addition, the EF ≤20% subgroup had higher complication rates in almost all measured categories. Also, the EF ≤20% cohort had significantly higher length of stay, intensive care unit (ICU) hours, ICU and hospital readmissions, and lowest discharge to home rate. The strongest factors associated with mortality were postoperative cardiac arrest, renal failure requiring dialysis, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, sepsis, prolonged ventilation, and gastrointestinal event. The overall median direct cost of care was $37,387.79 ($27,605.18, $51,720.96), with a median direct cost of care in the EF ≤20%, EF 21% to 35%, and EF >35% subgroups of $52,500.17 ($34,103.52, $80,806.79), $44,108.32 ($31,597.58, $63,788.03), and $36,521.80 ($27,168.91, $50,019.31), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In nonemergent isolated CABG surgery, low EF continues to have higher surgical risks and higher direct cost of care despite advances in cardiovascular care.

Prioritizing elective cardiovascular procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic: The cardiovascular medically necessary, time-sensitive procedure scorecard.

BACKGROUND: Following the surge of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, government regulations, and recommendations from professional societies have conditioned the resumption of elective surgical and cardiovascular (CV) procedures on having strategies to prioritize cases because of concerns regarding the availability of sufficient resources and the risk of COVID-19 transmission. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the use of a scoring system for standardized triage of elective CV procedures. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed records of patients scheduled for elective CV procedures that were prioritized ad hoc to be either performed or deferred when New Jersey state orders limited the performance of elective procedures due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients in both groups were scored using our proposed CV medically necessary, time-sensitive (MeNTS) procedure scorecard, designed to stratify procedures based on a composite measure of hospital resource utilization, risk of COVID-19 exposure, and time sensitivity. RESULTS: A total of 109 scheduled elective procedures were either deferred (n = 58) or performed (n = 51). The median and mean cumulative CV MeNTS scores for the group of performed cases were significantly lower than for the deferred group (26 (interquartile range (IQR) 22-31) vs. 33 (IQR 28-39), p < .001, and 26.4 (SE 0.34) vs. 32.9 (SE 0.35), p < .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The CV MeNTS procedure score was able to stratify elective cases that were either performed or deferred using an ad hoc strategy. Our findings suggest that the CV MeNTS procedure scorecard may be useful for the fair triage of elective CV cases during the time when available capacity may be limited due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Changes in the socioeconomic status of patients receiving TAVR in New York State.

BACKGROUND: When transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) was first approved by the Food and Drug Administration in October 2011, it was an innovative treatment with limited accessibility. However, over the past few years, TAVR has become standard of care in patients with aortic stenosis. The effect of socioeconomic status (SES) on this transition of use of TAVR is unknown. METHOD: Using the New York state department Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database, we compared baseline patient characteristics and facilities in low-income areas and high-income areas. Trends in residential SES of patients undergoing TAVR were examined over time and assessed with a Poisson regression and Cochran Armitage trend tests. RESULT: From October 2011 and 2012 to December 2016, we found that the numbers of TAVR procedures performed among patients from both low (187-1150 in 2016, P < .001) and high (227-1160, P < .001) income areas increased over time. The proportion of TAVR procedures performed in patients from low-income areas increased over time, while those in high-income areas decreased (from 45.2% in 2011 and 2012 to 49.8% in 2016 for low-income and from 54.8%-50.2% for high-income, P = .009). CONCLUSION: In the case of TAVR in New York State, when the innovative treatment was introduced in the clinical practice, there were initial SES-based disparities in access to the procedure. However, these disparities resolved over time, probably due to the broader diffusion of the technique.

Operating Room Attire Policy and Healthcare Cost: Favoring Evidence over Action for Prevention of Surgical Site Infections.

BACKGROUND: The Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses (AORN) released new guidelines for operating room attire in 2015 in an attempt to reduce surgical site infections (SSIs). These guidelines have been adopted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We aimed to assess the relationships among operating room attire, SSIs, and healthcare costs. STUDY DESIGN: In March 2016, our center introduced the AORN attire policy. National Health Safety Network data from our hospital were collected on general surgery, cardiac, neurosurgery, orthopaedic, and gynecology procedures from January 2014 to November 2017. The SSI rates and microbiological culture data for 30,493 procedures before and after policy implementation were compared using propensity score matching. The associated costs of the AORN policy were analyzed. RESULTS: After 1:1 propensity score matching, 12,585 matched pairs spanning the policy change were included (25,170 patients total); before policy change (BC group) and after policy change (AC group). The rate of SSIs did not differ between groups (1.0% AC group vs 1.1% BC group; p = 0.7). There was no difference in the incidence of Staphylococcal species cultured from wounds (19.3% AC group vs 16.8% BC group; p = 0.6). Multivariable analyses demonstrated that wound classification and emergent procedures were the strongest independent predictors of SSIs. The cost of attire for 1 person entering the operating room increased from $0.07 to $0.12 before policy change to $1.11 to $1.38 after policy change. Use of the mandated operating room long-sleeved jackets alone in our institution was associated with an added cost of $1,128,078 annually, which translates to an estimated $540 million per year for all US hospitals combined. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the AORN guidelines has not decreased SSIs and has increased healthcare costs.

Costs and in-hospital outcomes of transcatheter aortic valve implantation versus surgical aortic valve replacement in commercial cases using a propensity score matched model.

The aim of this study was to compare in-hospital cost and outcomes between transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). TAVI is an effective treatment option in patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis who are at high risk for traditional SAVR. Several studies using trial data or outside United States registry data have addressed TAVI cost issues, although there is a paucity of cost data involving commercial cases in the United States. Using Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample files, a propensity score-matched analysis of all commercial TAVI and SAVR cases performed in 2011 was conducted. Overall hospital cost and length of stay, as well as procedural complications, were compared between the 2 matched cohorts: 595 TAVI patients were matched to 1,785 SAVR patients in a 1:3 ratio. There was no difference in mean ($181,912 vs $196,298) or median ($152,993 vs $155,974) hospital cost between TAVI and SAVR (p = 0.60). The TAVI group had significantly shorter lengths of hospital stay than the SAVR group (mean 9.76 vs 12.01 days, p <0.001). There was no difference in postprocedural in-hospital death or stroke, but TAVI patients were more likely to have bleeding complications, to have vascular complications, and to require pacemakers. In conclusion, when analyzing in-hospital cost of commercial TAVI and SAVR cases using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample data set, TAVI is an economically satisfactory alternative to SAVR and results in an approximately 2-day shorter length of stay during the index hospitalization.

A population-based analysis of robotic-assisted mitral valve repair.

BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted mitral valve repair is becoming more frequently performed in cardiac surgery. However, little is known about its utilization and safety at a national level. METHODS: Patients undergoing mitral valve repair in the United States from 2008 to 2012 were identified in the National Inpatient Sample. Inhospital mortality, complications, length of stay, and cost for patients undergoing robotic-assisted mitral valve repair were compared with patients undergoing nonrobotic procedures. RESULTS: We identified 50,408 isolated mitral valve repair surgeries, of which 3,145 were done with robotic assistance. In a propensity score matched analysis of 631 pairs of patients, we found no difference between patients undergoing robotic-assisted and nonrobotic-assisted mitral valve repair with respect to inhospital mortality, complications, or composite outcomes in unadjusted or multivariable analyses. Robotic-assisted mitral valve repair surgery was associated with a shorter median length of stay (4 versus 6 days, p < 0.001), and there was no difference in median total costs between the two procedures. CONCLUSIONS: In our analysis of a large national database with its inherent limitations, robotic-assisted mitral valve repair was found to be safe, with an acceptable morbidity and mortality profile.

Minithoracotomy for mitral valve repair improves inpatient and postdischarge economic savings.

OBJECTIVE: Small series of thoracotomy for mitral valve repair have demonstrated clinical benefit. This multi-institutional administrative database analysis compares outcomes of thoracotomy and sternotomy approaches for mitral repair. METHODS: The Premier database was queried from 2007 to 2011 for mitral repair hospitalizations. Premier contains billing, cost, and coding data from more than 600 US hospitals, totaling 25 million discharges. Thoracotomy and sternotomy approaches were identified through expert rules; robotics were excluded. Propensity matching on baseline characteristics was performed. Regression analysis of surgical approach on outcomes and costs was modeled. RESULTS: Expert rule analysis positively identified thoracotomy in 847 and sternotomy in 566. Propensity matching created 2 groups of 367. Mortalities were similar (thoracotomy 1.1% vs sternotomy 1.9%). Sepsis and other infections were significantly lower with thoracotomy (1.1% vs 4.4%). After adjustment for hospital differences, thoracotomy carried a 17.2% lower hospitalization cost (-$8289) with a 2-day stay reduction. Readmission rates were significantly lower with thoracotomy (26.2% vs 35.7% at 30 days and 31.6% vs 44.1% at 90 days). Thoracotomy was more common in southern and northeastern hospitals (63% vs 37% and 64% vs 36%, respectively), teaching hospitals (64% vs 36%) and larger hospitals (>600 beds, 78% vs 22%). CONCLUSIONS: Relative to sternotomy, thoracotomy for mitral repairs provides similar mortality, less morbidity, fewer infections, shorter stay, and significant cost savings during primary admission. The markedly lower readmission rates for thoracotomy will translate into additional institutional cost savings when a penalty on hospitals begins under the Affordable Care Act's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.

Right anterior thoracotomy aortic valve replacement is associated with less cost than sternotomy-based approaches: a multi-institution analysis of 'real world' data.

BACKGROUND: Large institutional analyses demonstrating outcomes of right anterior mini-thoracotomy (RAT) for isolated aortic valve replacement (isoAVR) do not exist. In this study, a group of cardiac surgeons who routinely perform minimally invasive isoAVR analyzed a cross-section of US hospital records in order to analyze outcomes of RAT as compared to sternotomy. METHODS: The Premier database was queried from 2007-2011 for clinical and cost data for patients undergoing isoAVR. This de-identified database contains billing, hospital cost, and coding data from >600 US facilities with information from >25 million inpatient discharges. Expert rules were developed to identify patients with RAT and those with any sternal incision (aStern). Propensity matching created groups adjusted for patient differences. The impact of surgical approach on outcomes and costs was modeled using regression analysis and, where indicated, adjusting for hospital size and geographical differences. RESULTS: AVR was performed in 27,051 patients. Analysis identified isoAVR by RAT (n = 1572) and by aStern (n = 3962). Propensity matching created two groups of 921 patients. RAT was more likely performed in southern hospitals (63% vs 36%; p < 0.01), teaching hospitals (66% vs 58%; p < 0.01) and larger hospitals (47% vs 30%; p < 0.01). There was significantly less blood product cost associated with RAT ($1381 vs $1912; p < 0.001). After adjusting for hospital differences, RAT was associated with lower cost than aStern ($38,769 vs $42,656; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Outcomes analyses can be performed from hospital administrative collective databases. This real world analysis demonstrates comparable outcomes and less cost and ICU time with RAT for AVR.