The association between famotidine and in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19.

Famotidine has been considered to be a potential treatment for COVID-19 but the current data is conflicting. This retrospective study was conducted by utilizing data of 9565 COVID-19 hospitalized patients. Patients treated with and without famotidine were matched by propensity score using a 1:1 matching scheme. A total of 1593 patients (16.7%) received famotidine. In-hospital mortality was similar in patients treated with and without famotidine in the propensity-matched cohorts (28.3% vs. 28.2%, p = 0.97), which remains similar irrespective of severity or concomitant treatment by steroids. Famotidine treatment was not associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients.

Prediction of in-hospital mortality with machine learning for COVID-19 patients treated with steroid and remdesivir.

We aimed to create the prediction model of in-hospital mortality using machine learning methods for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treated with steroid and remdesivir. We reviewed 1571 hospitalized patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 from the Mount Sinai Health System treated with both steroids and remdesivir. The important variables associated with in-hospital mortality were identified using LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator) and SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) through the light gradient boosting model (GBM). The data before February 17th, 2021 (N = 769) was randomly split into training and testing datasets; 80% versus 20%, respectively. Light GBM models were created with train data and area under the curves (AUCs) were calculated. Additionally, we calculated AUC with the data between February 17th, 2021 and March 30th, 2021 (N = 802). Of the 1571 patients admitted due to COVID-19, 331 (21.1%) died during hospitalization. Through LASSO and SHAP, we selected six important variables; age, hypertension, oxygen saturation, blood urea nitrogen, intensive care unit admission, and endotracheal intubation. AUCs using training and testing datasets derived from the data before February 17th, 2021 were 0.871/0.911. Additionally, the light GBM model has high predictability for the latest data (AUC: 0.881) (https://risk-model.herokuapp.com/covid). A high-value prediction model was created to estimate in-hospital mortality for COVID-19 patients treated with steroid and remdesivir.

Measuring severe neonatal morbidity using hospital discharge data in France.

BACKGROUND: Measuring infant health at birth is key for surveillance and research in obstetrics and neonatology, but there is no international consensus on morbidity indicators. The Neonatal Adverse Outcome Indicator (NAOI) is a composite indicator, developed in Australia, which measures the burden of severe neonatal morbidity using hospital discharge data. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the applicability of the NAOI in France for surveillance and research. METHODS: We constituted a cohort of live births ≥24 weeks' gestational age in Metropolitan France from 2014 to 2015 using hospital discharge, insurance claims and cause of death data. Outlier hospitals were identified using funnel plots of standardised morbidity ratios (SMR), and their coding patterns were assessed. We compared the NAOI and its component codes with published Australian and English data and estimated unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios for known risk factors for neonatal morbidity. RESULTS: We included 1,459,123 births (511 hospitals). Twenty-eight hospitals had SMR above funnel plot control limits. Newborns with NAOI morbidities in these hospitals had lower mortality and shorter stays than in other hospitals. Amongst within-limit hospitals, NAOI prevalence was 4.8%, comparable to Australia (4.6%) and England (5.4%). Most individual components had a similar prevalence, with the exception of respiratory support, intravenous fluid procedures and infection. NAOI was lowest at 39 weeks (2.2%) with higher risks for maternal age ≥40 (relative risk [RR] 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42, 1.51), state medical insurance (RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.52, 1.68), male sex (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.19, 1.23) and birthweight <3rd percentile (RR 4.60, 95% CI 4.51, 4.69). CONCLUSIONS: The NAOI provides valuable information on population prevalence of severe neonatal morbidity and its risk factors. Whilst the prevalence was similar in high-income countries with comparable neonatal mortality levels, ensuring valid comparisons between countries and hospitals will require further work to harmonize coding procedures, especially for infection and respiratory morbidity.

Prophylactic versus therapeutic anticoagulation for survival of patients with COVID-19 on steroid.

Previous observational and randomized studies suggested potential benefit of therapeutic anticoagulation during hospitalization, but this treatment remains controversial. As of June 30th 2021, steroids is the standard treatment of COVID patients. We aimed to investigate the association of prophylactic and therapeutic anticoagulation with mortality for patients with COVID-19 who were treated with steroids. We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 2533 patients discharged between March 1st, 2020 and March 30th, 2021, with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the Mount Sinai Health System and treated with steroids. We evaluated the effect of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation on the outcomes using propensity score analyses. Subgroup analyses were conducted by stratification of patients by endotracheal intubation. Among the 2533 eligible patients, 465 (18.4%) received therapeutic anticoagulation. After 1:1 propensity score matching (N = 383 pairs), in-hospital mortality was similar between those with therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation (36.0% versus 30.0%, P = 0.091). In-hospital mortality regardless of endotracheal intubation were not significantly different between the two groups. Therapeutic anticoagulation was not associated with reduced or increased risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 treated with steroids.

U shape association of hemoglobin level with in-hospital mortality for COVID-19 patients.

Our hypothesis was that high hemoglobin (Hb) level might be associated with hypercoagulable state and death due to COVID-19. Of the 9467 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, patients were subdivided into 5 groups based on the level of Hb; Hb < 10 g/dL, 10 g/dL ≤ Hb < 12 g/dL, 12 g/dL ≤ Hb < 14 g/dL, 14 g/dL ≤ Hb < 16 g/dL, and Hb ≥ 16 g/dL. Compared to patients with 12 g/dL ≤ Hb < 14 g/dL, patients with Hb ≥ 16 g/dL had significantly higher adjusted in-hospital mortality (OR [95% CI] 1.62 [1.15-2.27], P = 0.005).

Hospital factor and prognosis of COVID-19 in New York City, the United States of America: insights from a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: April 22nd, 2020, New York City (NYC) was the epicenter of the pandemic of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in the US with differences of death rates among its 5 boroughs. We aimed to investigate the difference in mortality associated with hospital factors (teaching versus community hospital) in NYC. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: We obtained medical records of 6509 hospitalized patients with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 from the Mount Sinai Health System including 4 teaching hospitals in Manhattan and 2 community hospitals located outside of Manhattan (Queens and Brooklyn) retrospectively. Propensity score analysis using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with stabilized weights was performed to adjust for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients initially presenting to teaching or community hospitals, and those who were transferred from community hospitals to teaching hospitals. RESULTS: Among 6509 patients, 4653 (72.6%) were admitted in teaching hospitals, 1462 (22.8%) were admitted in community hospitals, and 293 (4.6%) were originally admitted in community and then transferred into teaching hospitals. Patients in community hospitals had higher mortality (42.5%) than those in teaching hospitals (17.6%) or those transferred from community to teaching hospitals (23.5%, P < 0.001). After IPTW-adjustment, when compared to patients cared for at teaching hospitals, the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of mortality were as follows: community hospitals 2.47 (2.03-2.99); transfers 0.80 (0.58-1.09)). CONCLUSIONS: Patients admitted to community hospitals had higher mortality than those admitted to teaching hospitals.

The association of remdesivir and in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19 patients treated with steroids.

BACKGROUND: Remdesivir has been shown to decrease SARS-CoV-2 viral loads and the duration of COVID-19 symptoms. However, current evidence regarding the association between remdesivir and in-hospital mortality for patients with COVID-19 steroid treatments is limited. We aimed to investigate whether remdesivir reduces in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19 treated with steroids. METHODS: In this retrospective multicentre study, we reviewed the medical records of 3372 patients discharged between 1 March 2020 and 30 March 2021, with laboratory confirmed COVID-19 in the Mount Sinai Health System and treated with steroids. We evaluated the effect of remdesivir on the outcomes using propensity score analyses. Subgroup analyses were conducted by stratification of patients by endotracheal intubation and COVID-19 antibody status. Acute kidney injury (AKI) was defined as an absolute serum creatinine increase of 0.3 mg/dL or a relative increase of 50%. RESULTS: Of the 3372 eligible patients, 1336 (39.6%) received remdesivir. After 1:1 propensity score matching (N = 999 pairs), in-hospital mortality was similar between those with and without remdesivir (21.4% versus 21.6%, respectively, P = 0.96). Remdesivir was not significantly associated with in-hospital mortality regardless of endotracheal intubation or COVID-19 antibody status. However, there was a signal that remdesivir was associated with a reduced risk of AKI in the propensity matched analysis (17.5% versus 23.4%, respectively, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Remdesivir was not associated with reduced risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19 treated with steroids but potentially associated with decreased risk of AKI. These findings should be confirmed in prospective studies focusing on COVID-19 patients treated with steroids.

Racial and Economic Neighborhood Segregation, Site of Delivery, and Morbidity and Mortality in Neonates Born Very Preterm.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the influence of racial and economic residential segregation of home or hospital neighborhood on very preterm birth morbidity and mortality in neonates born very preterm. STUDY DESIGN: We constructed a retrospective cohort of n = 6461 infants born <32 weeks using 2010-2014 New York City vital statistics-hospital data. We calculated racial and economic Index of Concentration at the Extremes for home and hospital neighborhoods. Neonatal mortality and morbidity was defined as death and/or severe neonatal morbidity. We estimated relative risks for Index of Concentration at the Extremes measures and neonatal mortality and morbidity using log binomial regression and the risk-adjusted contribution of delivery hospital using Fairlie decomposition. RESULTS: Infants whose mothers live in neighborhoods with the greatest relative concentration of Black residents had a 1.6 times greater risk of neonatal mortality and morbidity than those with the greatest relative concentration of White residents (95% CI 1.2-2.1). Delivery hospital explained more than one-half of neighborhood differences. Infants with both home and hospital in high-concentration Black neighborhoods had a 38% adjusted risk of neonatal mortality and morbidity compared with 25% of those with both home and hospital high-concentration White neighborhoods (P = .045). CONCLUSIONS: Structural racism influences very preterm birth neonatal mortality and morbidity through both the home and hospital neighborhood. Quality improvement interventions should incorporate a framework that includes neighborhood context.

The association of COVID-19 antibody with in-hospital outcomes in COVID-19 infected patients.

We aimed to investigate whether hospitalizations of patients who tested positive for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) antibodies are associated with reduced in-hospital mortality. Of the 2459 patients admitted due to COVID-19 and tested for antibodies, 937 (38.1%) had positive tests. After adjustment for patient characteristics and treatments, patients with positive COVID-19 antibody test had lower in-hospital mortality compared with those with negative test results (odds ratio [OR]: 0.62; 95% confidential interval [95% CI] 0.46-0.83, p = 0.001). In conclusion, positive COVID-19 antibody test results were associated with the reduced risk of in-hospital mortality for COVID-19 patients.

The characteristics and outcomes of critically Ill patients with COVID-19 who received systemic thrombolysis for presumed pulmonary embolism: an observational study.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with abnormal hemostasis, autopsy evidence of systemic microthrombosis, and a high prevalence of venous thromboembolic disease. Tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) has been used in patients with critically ill COVID-19 with high clinical suspicion of pulmonary embolism (PE). A retrospective cohort study of 6095 hospitalized COVID-19 patients at 5 acute care hospitals in New York was conducted. 57 patients received tPA for presumed PE during March 10th to April 27th. The mean age was 60.8 ± 10.8 years, and 71.9% (41/57) were male. We defined strongly suspected PE among 75.4% (43/57) of patients who had acute worsening of hypoxia and acute hypotension requiring pressors. The findings suggestive of PE included right ventricular (RV) strain in 15.8% (9/57), deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in 7.0% (4/57), increased dead space ventilation (Vd) in 31.6% (18/57) of patients, respectively. RV strain and RV thrombus were present in 3.5% (2/57), RV strain and DVT in 5.3% (3/57), RV strain and increased Vd in 8.8% (5/57), and DVT and increased Vd in 3.5% (2/57) of patients. Chest CT Angiography was not performed in any of the patients. Following tPA infusion, 49.1% (28/57) of patients demonstrated improvement. Six patients (10.5%) survived to discharge, of whom 2 received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and were transferred to other facilities for lung transplant, 2 were discharged home, and 2 were discharged to a rehabilitation facility. However, overall mortality was 89.5%. The utility of tPA for critically ill patients with COVID-19 and presumed PE warrants further studies.

Double Disadvantage in Delivery Hospital for Black and Hispanic Women and High-Risk Infants.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether delivery hospitals that perform poorly for women also perform poorly for high-risk infants and to what extent Black and Hispanic women receive care at hospitals that perform poorly for both women and infants. METHODS: We examined the correlation between hospital rankings for severe maternal morbidity and very preterm morbidity and mortality in New York City Hospitals using linked birth certificate and state discharge data for 2010-2014. We used mixed-effects logistic regression with a random hospital-specific intercept to generate risk standardized severe maternal morbidity rates and very preterm birth neonatal morbidity and mortality rates for each hospital. We ranked hospitals separately by these risk-standardized rates. We used k-means cluster analysis to categorize hospitals based on their performance on both metrics and risk-adjusted multinomial logistic regression to estimate adjusted probabilities of delivering in each hospital-quality cluster by race/ethnicity. RESULTS: Hospital rankings for severe maternal morbidity and very preterm neonatal morbidity-mortality were moderately correlated (r = .32; p = .05). A 5-cluster solution best fit the data and yielded the categories for hospital performance for women and infants: excellent, good, fair, fair to poor, poor. Black and Hispanic versus White women were less likely to deliver in an excellent quality cluster (adjusted percent of 11%, 18% vs 28%, respectively, p < .001) and more likely to deliver in a poor quality cluster (adjusted percent of 28%, 20%, vs. 4%, respectively, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTISE: Hospital performance for maternal and high-risk infant outcomes is only moderately correlated but Black and Hispanic women deliver at hospitals with worse outcomes for both women and very preterm infants.

The Impact of Severe Maternal Morbidity on Very Preterm Infant Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of severe maternal morbidity among very preterm births and determine its association with very preterm infant mortality and morbidity. STUDY DESIGN: This study used New York City Vital Statistics birth and death records linked with maternal and newborn discharge abstract data for live births between 2010 and 2014. We included 6901 infants without congenital anomalies born between 240/7 and 326/7 weeks of gestation. Severe maternal morbidity was identified as life-threatening conditions or life-saving procedures. Outcomes were first-year infant mortality, severe neonatal morbidity (bronchopulmonary dysplasia, severe necrotizing enterocolitis, stage 3-5 retinopathy of prematurity, and intraventricular hemorrhage grades 3-4), and a combined outcome of death or morbidity. RESULTS: Twelve percent of very preterm live-born infants had a mother with severe maternal morbidity. Maternal and pregnancy characteristics associated with occurrence of severe maternal morbidity were multiparity, being non-Hispanic black, and preexisting health conditions, but gestational age and the percentage small for gestational age did not differ. Infants whose mothers experienced severe maternal morbidity had higher first-year mortality, 11.2% vs 7.7% without severe maternal morbidity, yielding a relative risk of 1.39 (95% CI: 1.14-1.70) after adjustment for maternal characteristics, preexisting comorbidities, pregnancy complications, and hospital factors. Severe neonatal morbidity was not associated with severe maternal morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Severe maternal morbidity is an independent risk factor for mortality in the first year of life among very preterm infants after consideration of other maternal and pregnancy risk factors.

Examining Trends in Obstetric Quality Measures for Monitoring Health Care Disparities.

BACKGROUND: Elective delivery (ED) before 39 weeks, low-risk cesarean delivery, and episiotomy are routinely reported obstetric quality measures and have been the focus of quality improvement initiatives over the past decade. OBJECTIVE: To estimate trends and differences in obstetric quality measures by race/ethnicity. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used 2008-2014 linked birth certificate-hospital discharge data from New York City to measure ED before 39 gestational weeks (ED <39), low-risk cesarean, and episiotomy by race/ethnicity. Measures were following the Joint Commission and National Quality Forum specifications. Average annual percent change (AAPC) was estimated using Poisson regression for each measure by race/ethnicity. Risk differences (RD) for non-Hispanic black women, Hispanic women, and Asian women compared with non-Hispanic white women were calculated. RESULTS: ED<39 decreased among whites [AAPC=-2.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), -3.7 to -1.7), while it increased among blacks (AAPC=1.3; 95% CI, 0.1-2.6) and Hispanics (AAPC=2.4; 95% CI, 1.4-3.4). Low-risk cesarean decreased among whites (AAPC=-2.8; 95% CI, -4.6 to -1.0), and episiotomy decreased among all groups. In 2008, white women had higher risk of most measures, but by 2014 incidence of ED<39 was increased among Hispanics (RD=2/100 deliveries; 95% CI, 2-4) and low-risk cesarean was increased among blacks (RD=3/100; 95% CI, 0.5-6), compared with whites. Incidence of episiotomy was lower among blacks and Hispanics than whites, and higher among Asian women throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Existing measures do not adequately assess health care disparities due to modest risk differences; nonetheless, continued monitoring of trends is warranted to detect possible emergent disparities.

Managing acute cholecystitis among Medicaid insured in New York State: opportunities to optimize care.

BACKGROUND: Identifying sources of unnecessary cost within Medicaid will help focus cost containment efforts. This study sought to identify differences in surgical management and associated costs of cholecystitis between Medicaid and privately insured in New York State. METHODS: The New York State all-payer mandatory discharge database from 2003 to 2013, had 297,635 patients with Medicaid (75,512) and privately (222,123) insurance who underwent cholecystectomy for cholecystitis. Patients were stratified by insurance. Four surgical management approaches were delineated based on cholecystectomy timing: primary, interval, emergency, and delayed cholecystectomy. Delayed cholecystectomy was defined as more than one hospital visit from diagnosis to definitive cholecystectomy. Medicaid and privately insured patients were propensity score matched. Surgical management approach and associated costs were compared between matched cohorts. RESULTS: A greater proportion of Medicaid patients underwent delayed cholecystectomy compared to matched privately insured patients, 8.5 versus 4.8%; P < 0.001. Primary initial cholecystectomy was performed in fewer Medicaid compared to privately insured patients, 55.4 versus 66.0%, P < 0.001. Primary initial cholecystectomy was the cheapest surgical management approach, with the median cost of $3707, and delayed cholecystectomy was the most expensive, $12,212, P < 0.001. The median cost per Medicaid patient was $6170 versus $4804 per matched privately insured patient, P < 0.001. The annual predicted cost savings for New York State Medicaid would be $13,097,371, if the distribution of surgical management approaches were proportionally similar to private insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Medicaid patients with cholecystitis were more frequently managed with delayed cholecystectomy than privately insured patients, which had substantial cost implications for the New York Medicaid Program.

The Impact of Surgical Care Improvement Project Measures on In-Hospital Outcomes following Elective Vascular Procedures.

BACKGROUND: As part of the Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP), a national quality partnership of organizations including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention implemented several perioperative guidelines regarding antibiotic, venous thromboembolism (VTE), and beta-blocker prophylaxis for surgical patients. We evaluated the effect of SCIP on in-hospital surgical site infections (SSI), graft infections, VTE, myocardial infarctions (MIs), cardiac complications, mortality, and length of stay following elective major vascular surgery. METHODS: Using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) diagnostic and procedure codes, we identified elective open abdominal aneurysm repair (OAR), endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR), carotid endarterectomy (CEA), major lower extremity amputation, and lower extremity bypass (LEB) procedures in the National Inpatient Sample from 2000 to 2012. Logistic regression and generalized linear models controlling for covariates were used to compare postoperative in-hospital outcomes before and after SCIP implementation (pre-SCIP era 2000-2005 versus post-SCIP era 2009-2012). RESULTS: In the post-SCIP era, the rate of in-hospital SSI following OAR increased from 1.0% to 1.6% (P < 0.05). Nonetheless, there were improvements in in-hospital SSI (in EVAR and CEA), graft infections (in OAR, EVAR, and LEB for tissue loss), VTE (in CEA), MI (in EVAR and LEB for tissue loss), cardiac complication (in all procedures except OAR), mortality (in EVAR, CEA, major lower extremity amputation, and LEB for tissue loss), and length of stay (in all procedures except OAR) (all P < 0.05). However after adjusting for covariates, SCIP was only associated with reducing SSI in CEA and major lower extremity amputation, graft infections in OAR and LEB for tissue loss, VTE in LEB for claudication or rest pain, mortality in OAR, and length of stay in all procedures except EVAR and CEA. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of SCIP measures was associated with slight improvements in a few in-hospital outcomes following vascular procedures. Additional measures that are more specific to the clinical and technical challenges of treating vascular disease may be more effective for improving the management of vascular patents.

Trends in Infective Endocarditis in California and New York State, 1998-2013.

IMPORTANCE: Prophylaxis and treatment guidelines for infective endocarditis have changed substantially over the past decade. In the United States, few population-based studies have explored the contemporary epidemiology and outcomes of endocarditis. OBJECTIVE: To quantify trends in the incidence and etiologies of infective endocarditis in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective population epidemiology study of patients hospitalized with a first episode of endocarditis identified from mandatory state databases in California and New York State between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2013. EXPOSURE: Infective endocarditis. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes were crude and standardized incidence of endocarditis and trends in patient characteristics and disease etiology. Trends in acquisition mode, organism, and mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 75 829 patients with first episodes of endocarditis (mean [SD] age, 62.3 [18.9] years; 59.1% male), the standardized annual incidence was stable between 7.6 (95% CI, 7.4 to 7.9) and 7.8 (95% CI, 7.6 to 8.0) cases per 100 000 persons (annual percentage change [APC], -0.06%; 95% CI, -0.3% to 0.2%; P = .59). From 1998 through 2013, the proportion of patients with native-valve endocarditis decreased (from 74.5% to 68.4%; APC, -0.7%; 95% CI, -0.9% to -0.5%; P < .001). Prosthetic-valve endocarditis increased (from 12.0% to 13.8%; APC, 1.3%; 95% CI, 0.8% to 1.7%; P < .001), and cardiac device-related endocarditis increased (from 1.3% to 4.1%; APC, 8.8%; 95% CI, 7.8% to 9.9%; P < .001). The proportion of patients with health care-associated nosocomial endocarditis decreased (from 17.7% to 15.3%; APC, -1.0%; 95% CI, -1.4% to -0.7%; P < .001). The proportion of patients with health care-associated nonnosocomial endocarditis increased (from 32.1% to 35.9%; APC, 0.8%; 95% CI, 0.5% to 1.1%; P < .001). The incidence of oral streptococcal endocarditis did not increase (unadjusted: APC, -0.1%; 95% CI, -0.8% to 0.6%; P = .77; adjusted: APC, -1.3%; 95% CI, -1.8% to -0.7%; P < .001). Crude 90-day mortality was unchanged (from 23.9% to 24.2%; APC, -0.3%; 95% CI, -1.0% to 0.4%; P = .44); adjusted risk of 90-day mortality decreased (adjusted hazard ratio per year, 0.982; 95% CI, 0.978 to 0.986; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In California and New York State, the overall standardized incidence of infective endocarditis was stable from 1998 through 2013, with changes in patient characteristics and etiology over this time.

Interhospital transfer for intact abdominal aortic aneurysm repair.

OBJECTIVE: Medically complex patients who need abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair are at increased risk of mortality. We study the effects of interhospital transfer to high-volume hospitals (HVHs) on postoperative complications and mortality after complications in these patients. METHODS: Data for 491,779 patients undergoing intact AAA surgery were extracted using Medicare files. Patient demographics, comorbidities, hospital volume, repair type, and patient transfer status were collected. Primary outcomes were postoperative complications and failure to rescue within 30 days after surgery. Data were analyzed using multivariable and propensity analysis. RESULTS: From 2000 to 2011, the percentage of patients transferred to another hospital for surgery before starting treatment more than doubled from .7% to 1.9% for endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR; P < .001) and from 1.2% to 3.7% for open repair (P < .001). At baseline, transferred patients had more congestive heart failure (18.7% vs 11.2%; P < .001), coronary (17.4% vs 15.0%; P < .001), pulmonary (38.3% vs 33.6%; P < .001), and renal failure (8.1% vs 4.6%; P < .001) comorbidities. Transferred patients incurred more complications after EVAR (25.1% vs 12.8%; P < .001) or open repair (42.3% vs 35.5%; P < .001). After propensity matching for comorbidities and demographics, there were fewer complication rates (40.4% vs 47.8%; P < .001) and decreased failure to rescue (5.5% vs 6.5%; P = .04) after open repair in patients transferred to HVHs than in patients who remained at the primary, low-volume hospital for surgery. Complication rates after EVAR for nontransferred patients at low-volume hospitals and transferred patients at HVHs were similar (23.9% vs 24.7%; P = .55). After propensity matching, there was no significant difference in failure to rescue (P = .06) after EVAR between patients transferred to HVHs and nontransferred patients who had procedures at low-volume hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Transfer of medically complex patients to HVHs for open AAA repair improves outcomes in AAA surgery. Complication rates decrease, and survival of transferred patients increases when they undergo open repair at HVHs.

The Impact of Hospital Size on CMS Hospital Profiling.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) profile hospitals using a set of 30-day risk-standardized mortality and readmission rates as a basis for public reporting. These measures are affected by hospital patient volume, raising concerns about uniformity of standards applied to providers with different volumes. OBJECTIVES: To quantitatively determine whether CMS uniformly profile hospitals that have equal performance levels but different volumes. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of patient-level and hospital-level data using hierarchical logistic regression models with hospital random effects. Simulation of samples including a subset of hospitals with different volumes but equal poor performance (hospital effects=+3 SD in random-effect logistic model). SUBJECTS: A total of 1,085,568 Medicare fee-for-service patients undergoing 1,494,993 heart failure admissions in 4930 hospitals between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2008. MEASURES: CMS methodology was used to determine the rank and proportion (by volume) of hospitals reported to perform "Worse than US National Rate." RESULTS: Percent of hospitals performing "Worse than US National Rate" was ∼40 times higher in the largest (fifth quintile by volume) compared with the smallest hospitals (first quintile). A similar gradient was seen in a cohort of 100 hospitals with simulated equal poor performance (0%, 0%, 5%, 20%, and 85% in quintiles 1 to 5) effectively leaving 78% of poor performers undetected. CONCLUSIONS: Our results illustrate the disparity of impact that the current CMS method of hospital profiling has on hospitals with higher volumes, translating into lower thresholds for detection and reporting of poor performance.