Association of Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm Size With Long-term Patient Outcomes: The KP-TAA Study.

Importance: The risk of adverse events from ascending thoracic aorta aneurysm (TAA) is poorly understood but drives clinical decision-making. Objective: To evaluate the association of TAA size with outcomes in nonsyndromic patients in a large non-referral-based health care delivery system. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Kaiser Permanente Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm (KP-TAA) cohort study was a retrospective cohort study at Kaiser Permanente Northern California, a fully integrated health care delivery system insuring and providing care for more than 4.5 million persons. Nonsyndromic patients from a regional TAA safety net tracking system were included. Imaging data including maximum TAA size were merged with electronic health record (EHR) and comprehensive death data to obtain demographic characteristics, comorbidities, medications, laboratory values, vital signs, and subsequent outcomes. Unadjusted rates were calculated and the association of TAA size with outcomes was evaluated in multivariable competing risk models that categorized TAA size as a baseline and time-updated variable and accounted for potential confounders. Data were analyzed from January 2018 to August 2021. Exposures: TAA size. Main Outcomes and Measures: Aortic dissection (AD), all-cause death, and elective aortic surgery. Results: Of 6372 patients with TAA identified between 2000 and 2016 (mean [SD] age, 68.6 [13.0] years; 2050 female individuals [32.2%] and 4322 male individuals [67.8%]), mean (SD) initial TAA size was 4.4 (0.5) cm (828 individuals [13.0% of cohort] had initial TAA size 5.0 cm or larger and 280 [4.4%] 5.5 cm or larger). Rates of AD were low across a mean (SD) 3.7 (2.5) years of follow-up (44 individuals [0.7% of cohort]; incidence 0.22 events per 100 person-years). Larger initial aortic size was associated with higher risk of AD and all-cause death in multivariable models, with an inflection point in risk at 6.0 cm. Estimated adjusted risks of AD within 5 years were 0.3% (95% CI, 0.3-0.7), 0.6% (95% CI, 0.4-1.3), 1.5% (95% CI, 1.2-3.9), 3.6% (95% CI, 1.8-12.8), and 10.5% (95% CI, 2.7-44.3) in patients with TAA size of 4.0 to 4.4 cm, 4.5 to 4.9 cm, 5.0 to 5.4 cm, 5.5 to 5.9 cm, and 6.0 cm or larger, respectively, in time-updated models. Rates of the composite outcome of AD and all-cause death were higher than for AD alone, but a similar inflection point for increased risk was observed at 6.0 cm. Conclusions and Relevance: In a large sociodemographically diverse cohort of patients with TAA, absolute risk of aortic dissection was low but increased with larger aortic sizes after adjustment for potential confounders and competing risks. Our data support current consensus guidelines recommending prophylactic surgery in nonsyndromic individuals with TAA at a 5.5-cm threshold.

Thoracic or thoracoabdominal approaches to endovascular device removal and open aortic repair.

BACKGROUND: Endovascular aortic repair is becoming increasingly common and diverse in its application despite ongoing uncertainty about long-term durability. Recent reports detail late conversion to open surgical repair to treat disease progression and repair failure. We describe our experience with using thoracic or thoracoabdominal approaches to endovascular device removal and open aortic repair after previous endovascular procedures. METHODS: Thirty-five patients underwent open aortic repair through thoracotomy (n=7) or thoracoabdominal incision (n=28) 0.5 to 48 months after undergoing endovascular thoracic (n=27) or abdominal (n=8) aortic procedures. Indications for open repair included expanding aneurysm (n=23), device infection (n=8), fistula (n=5), pseudoaneurysm (n=2), aneurysm rupture (n=2), and restenosis (n=1). Endovascular devices were completely removed in 26 patients and partially removed in 9. Descending thoracic aortic repair was performed in 10 patients, thoracoabdominal aortic repair in 24, and juxtarenal abdominal aortic repair in 1. RESULTS: There were 2 in-hospital deaths (6%), both in patients who presented with endovascular device infection. There were 8 late deaths. Overall 1-year survival was 83%±7%. Among the patients who presented with infected devices, 3 experienced major late complications, including persistent infection, pseudoaneurysm, and recurrent fistula; 2 of these patients succumbed to late deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Open surgical repair after previous endovascular aortic procedures is successful in the majority of patients, particularly in those without device infections. Achieving definitive aortic repair in patients with infected endovascular devices is particularly challenging.

Predicting mortality in high-risk coronary artery bypass: surgeon versus risk model.

BACKGROUND: Risk models are useful in evaluating and comparing surgical outcomes, but surgeons may not always agree with the risk estimates derived from these models, particularly in high-risk cases. We examined the concordance between surgeons' and a risk model's predictions of operative mortality in high-risk coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients, and we attempted to identify the reasons for any discrepancies. METHODS: From the Veterans Affairs Continuous Improvement in Cardiac Surgery Program (CICSP), a prospective database and cardiac surgery risk model, we obtained data regarding 181 high-risk, isolated CABG cases performed at a single institution between April 1998 and April 2008. Cases were considered high risk if the surgeon estimated the patient's operative mortality risk to be ≥ 10%. We compared the mortality predictions made by surgeons and the risk model by using the signed-rank test and investigated cases in which there was a significant discrepancy (at least 2-fold) between the two predictions. RESULTS: The observed 30-d/in-hospital and 180-d mortality rates were 6.1% (11/181) and 11.0% (20/181), respectively. The mean operative mortality prediction made by surgeons (12.0% ± 5.3%) was higher than that made by the risk model (7.5% ± 8.5%) (P < 0.001). There was significant discrepancy between the surgeon and risk model estimates in 62% (113/181) of cases. In 53% (60/113) of these cases, the surgeon reported having considered risk factors not included in the CICSP model, including (most commonly) possible need for an additional procedure (n = 15), compromised mobility (n = 11), liver disease (n = 9), hematologic or immunologic disease (n = 6), and quality of targets (n = 5). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk CABG cases, surgeon and CICSP risk estimates often disagreed markedly, partly because some disease entities of concern to surgeons are not included in the risk model. The higher mortality risk estimated by the surgeons is a better reflection of the considerable mortality risk that extends up to 180 days after surgery.

Outcomes of concomitant aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting at teaching hospitals versus nonteaching hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: Hospitals with a high volume and academic status produce better patient outcomes than other hospitals after complex surgical procedures. Risk models show that concomitant aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting pose a greater risk than isolated coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic valve replacement. We examined the relationship of hospital teaching status and the presence of a thoracic surgery residency program with aortic valve replacement/coronary artery bypass grafting outcomes. METHODS: By using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, we identified patients who underwent concomitant aortic valve replacement/coronary artery bypass grafting from 1998 to 2007 at nonteaching hospitals, teaching hospitals without a thoracic surgery residency program, and teaching hospitals with a thoracic surgery residency program. Multivariate analysis was performed to identify intergroup differences. Risk-adjusted multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess independent predictors of in-hospital mortality and complication rates. RESULTS: The 3 groups of patients did not differ significantly in their baseline characteristics. Patients who underwent aortic valve replacement/coronary artery bypass grafting had higher overall risk-adjusted complication rates in nonteaching hospitals (odds ratio 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-1.80; P < .0001) and teaching hospitals without a thoracic surgery residency program (odds ratio 1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-1.60; P < .0001) than in thoracic surgery residency program hospitals. However, no difference was observed in the adjusted mortality rate for nonteaching hospitals (odds ratio 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.04; P = .25) or teaching hospitals without a thoracic surgery residency program (odds ratio 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-1.08; P = .98) when compared with thoracic surgery residency program hospitals. Robust statistical models were used for analysis, with c-statistics of 0.98 (complications) and 0.82 (mortality). CONCLUSION: Patients who require complex cardiac operations may have better outcomes when treated at teaching hospitals with a thoracic surgery residency program.

Endovascular versus open repair of ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysms: a nationwide risk-adjusted study of 923 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Recent studies support the use of endovascular treatment for ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysms, but few studies have examined the use of thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) for ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysm. We evaluated nationwide data regarding short-term outcomes of TEVAR and open aortic repair (OAR) for ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysm. METHODS: From US Nationwide Inpatient Sample data, we identified 923 patients who underwent ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysm repair in 2006-2008 and who had no concomitant aortic disorders. Of these patients, 364 (39.4%) underwent TEVAR and 559 (60.6%) underwent OAR. Multivariable regression was used to assess the effect of TEVAR versus OAR after adjusting for potential confounding factors. Outcomes assessed were in-hospital mortality, complications, failure to rescue (defined as the mortality among patients in whom a complication develops), and disposition. Backward stepwise logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of outcomes for each approach. RESULTS: Patients undergoing TEVAR were older (72 ± 12 years vs 65 ± 15 years; P < .001) and had a higher Deyo comorbidity index (4.19 ± 1.79 vs 3.14 ± 2.05; P < .001) than patients undergoing OAR. Unadjusted mortality was 23.4% (85/364) for TEVAR and 28.6% (160/559) for OAR. After risk adjustment, the odds of mortality, complications, and failure to rescue were similar for TEVAR and OAR (P > .1 for all), but patients undergoing TEVAR had a greater chance of routine discharge (odds ratio [OR] = 3.3; P < .001). An interaction was identified that linked hospital size and operative approach with risk of complications (P < .001). In smaller hospitals, TEVAR was associated with lower complication rates than OAR (OR = 0.21; P < .05). Regression analysis revealed that smaller hospital size predicted significantly higher rates of mortality (OR = 2.4; P < .05), complications (OR = 4.0; P < .005), and failure to rescue (OR = 51.12; P < .001) in those undergoing OAR but not in those undergoing TEVAR. Preexisting renal disorders substantially increased mortality risk (OR = 10.81; P < .001) and failure to rescue (OR = 309.54; P < .001) in patients undergoing TEVAR. CONCLUSIONS: Nationwide data for ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysm reveal equivalent mortality, complication rates, and failure to rescue for TEVAR and OAR but more frequent routine discharge with TEVAR. Unlike OAR outcomes, TEVAR outcomes were not poorer in smaller hospitals, where TEVAR produced fewer complications than OAR. Therefore, TEVAR may be an ideal alternative to OAR for ruptured descending thoracic aortic aneurysm, particularly in small hospitals where expertise in OAR may be lacking and immediate transfer to a higher echelon of care may not be feasible.

Staged versus synchronous carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass grafting: analysis of 10-year nationwide outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The timing of operative interventions for patients with concurrent carotid and coronary artery disease is controversial. We evaluated nationwide data regarding staged or synchronous carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and compared the two approaches' outcome profiles. METHODS: From Nationwide Inpatient Sample database 1998 to 2007, we identified 6,153 (28.9%) patients who underwent CEA before or after CABG during the same hospital admission but not on the same day (STAGED) and 16,639 patients who underwent both procedures on the same day (SYNC). Hierarchic multivariable regression was used to assess the independent effect of operative strategy on mortality, neurologic and overall complications, and charges. RESULTS: Mean age (69.5±9.0 years) and Charlson-Deyo score (4.6±1.5) were similar for both groups. Mortality (4.2% vs 4.5%) or neurologic complications (3.5% vs 3.9%) were similar between the STAGED and SYNC groups (p>0.7 for both). The STAGED patients had higher morbidity (48.4% vs 42.6%; odds ratio [OR] 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5 to 2.2; p<0.001) and more cardiac (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.7; p<0.001), wound (OR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.8 to 2.4; p<0.001), respiratory (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.3; p=0.001), and renal complications (OR, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.3; p<0.001). In SYNC patients, on-pump CABG increased stroke rates (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3 to 1.9; p<0.001). The STAGED procedures were independently associated with higher hospital charges by $23,328 (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We identified no significant difference in mortality or neurologic complications between STAGED and SYNC approaches. Staged procedures were associated with a greater risk of overall complications and higher hospital charges than SYNC. On-pump CABG was associated with higher stroke rates in SYNC patients.

Open repair of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm in the modern surgical era: contemporary outcomes in 509 patients.

BACKGROUND: Recent technologic advances in endovascular devices have led to alternative approaches to thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) repair; these innovative approaches must be compared with the "gold standard" of conventional open TAAA repair. To facilitate such comparisons, we evaluated contemporary outcomes of open TAAA repair. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed and analyzed data collected prospectively between May 2006 and October 2010 regarding 509 consecutive patients who underwent TAAA repair. Standard univariate statistical comparisons were performed, as well as multivariable modeling, to identify predictors of survival. RESULTS: A total of 305 patients (59.9%) had degenerative aneurysms without dissection, and 204 (40.1%) had aortic dissection. There were 104 (20.4%) urgent or emergent repairs and 26 (5.1%) ruptured aneurysms. Operative adjuncts were used selectively. Of the 290 patients (57.0%) who underwent extensive repairs (Crawford extents I and II), 282 (97.2%) had cerebrospinal fluid drainage, 257 (88.6%) had left heart bypass, and 213 (73.4%) had intercostal/lumbar artery reattachment. The overall operative survival rate was 92.1% (469 of 509), and survival was better after elective repairs (93.8% [380 of 405]) than after urgent or emergent operations (85.6% [89 of 104], p = 0.005). Renal failure necessitating hemodialysis at discharge developed in 30 patients (5.9%). Permanent paraplegia occurred in 13 patients (2.6%). Actuarial survival was 79.1% ± 2.0% at 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Contemporary open TAAA repair is characterized by respectable early outcomes, particularly when repair is elective. Such results should be compared with those of evolving approaches, including endovascular and hybrid repairs.

Hypoalbuminemia and long-term survival after coronary artery bypass: a propensity score analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hypoalbuminemia is associated with increased morbidity in surgical patients. The impact of low albumin level on survival in cardiac surgical patients is unknown. We hypothesized that a low preoperative albumin level negatively affects long-term survival after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. METHODS: We reviewed prospectively gathered data from the records of 1,164 consecutive patients who underwent primary isolated CABG at our institution between 1997 and 2007. Propensity score analysis of 18 preoperative and intraoperative variables balanced potential confounding factors between the two groups of patients, so that the final study cohort consisted of 588 patients: 294 with a preoperative albumin level less than 3.5 g/dL (ie, hypoalbuminemia) and 294 patients with a preoperative albumin level of 3.5 g/dL or greater. We assessed long-term survival by using Kaplan-Meier curves generated by log rank tests. RESULTS: The two groups of patients were well matched in terms of preoperative and intraoperative covariates. Both groups had similar early outcomes, including 30-day mortality rates (2.0% versus 1.7%; p = 0. 76) and the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (2.7% versus 2.7%; p = 1.0). However, patients with hypoalbuminemia had a significantly worse 8-year survival rate (65% ± 7% versus 86% ± 3%; hazard ratio 2.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.4 to 3.6; p = 0.001) than patients without hypoalbuminemia. CONCLUSIONS: Although preoperative hypoalbuminemia did not predict increased early postoperative mortality or morbidity in CABG patients, it did independently predict poor long-term survival after CABG. Identifying the mechanism that underlies this relationship is essential in improving overall survival among patients with low serum albumin levels who are undergoing surgical myocardial revascularization.

Early outcomes after aortic arch replacement by using the Y-graft technique.

BACKGROUND: Aortic arch replacement remains among the most technically challenging cardiovascular operations, incurring considerable risk for perioperative death and stroke. The trifurcated graft technique, in which a double Y-graft is used to connect brachiocephalic branches to the main aortic graft, was recently developed to simplify arch reconstruction, reduce embolization, and minimize related cerebral ischemia. We examined early outcomes of aortic arch replacement performed by using single or double Y-graft variations of this technique. METHODS: Between December 2006 and May 2009, the Y-graft technique was used to perform aortic arch replacement in 55 patients. Thirty-three patients had prior median sternotomy (60%), and 34 (62%) had ascending aortic dissection. Axillary cannulation was used in 52 patients (95%), and hypothermic circulatory arrest and antegrade cerebral perfusion were used in all patients. Median systemic and cerebral circulatory arrest times were 65 minutes and 0 minutes, respectively. A first-stage elephant trunk repair was performed in 46 patients (84%). Follow-up data were obtained for all patients. RESULTS: There were no in-hospital deaths and one 30-day death (2%). Three patients (5%) had strokes, 1 of which was transient. Actuarial 1-year and 2-year survival rates were 80.0% ± 5.4% and 77.6% ± 5.7%, respectively. Thirty-one of the elephant trunk patients (67%) subsequently underwent second-stage completion procedures, 5 (16%) of them endovascular. CONCLUSIONS: Early results of aortic arch replacement by the Y-graft technique compare favorably with those of traditional approaches. The technique enables effective delivery of antegrade cerebral perfusion during complex arch procedures and incurs only a low risk of neurologic sequelae.

Radial artery grafts vs saphenous vein grafts in coronary artery bypass surgery: a randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Arterial grafts are thought to be better conduits than saphenous vein grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) based on experience with using the left internal mammary artery to bypass the left anterior descending coronary artery. The efficacy of the radial artery graft is less clear. OBJECTIVE: To compare 1-year angiographic patency of radial artery grafts vs saphenous vein grafts in patients undergoing elective CABG. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, randomized controlled trial conducted from February 2003 to February 2009 at 11 Veterans Affairs medical centers among 757 participants (99% men) undergoing first-time elective CABG. INTERVENTIONS: The left internal mammary artery was used to preferentially graft the left anterior descending coronary artery whenever possible; the best remaining recipient vessel was randomized to radial artery vs saphenous vein graft. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point was angiographic graft patency at 1 year after CABG. Secondary end points included angiographic graft patency at 1 week after CABG, myocardial infarction, stroke, repeat revascularization, and death. RESULTS: Analysis included 733 patients (366 in the radial artery group, 367 in the saphenous vein group). There was no significant difference in study graft patency at 1 year after CABG (radial artery, 238/266; 89%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 86%-93%; saphenous vein, 239/269; 89%; 95% CI, 85%-93%; adjusted OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.56-1.74; P = .98). There were no significant differences in the secondary end points. CONCLUSION: Among Veterans Affairs patients undergoing first-time elective CABG, the use of a radial artery graft compared with saphenous vein graft did not result in greater 1-year patency. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00054847.

Outcomes of circulatory arrest procedures for the treatment of thoracic aortic disease at a veterans facility.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of thoracic aortic surgery involving hypothermic circulatory arrest at a US Department of Veterans Affairs medical center were evaluated. METHODS: Using the Veterans Affairs Continuous Improvement in Cardiac Surgery Program, all thoracic aortic operations performed with hypothermic circulatory arrest between December 1999 and December 2009 were identified (n = 24). Operative mortality and morbidity were evaluated, and survival was assessed by using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Aortic dissection was the underlying disease in 10 patients (42%). Full or hemiarch aortic repair was performed in 16 patients (67%); of these operations, 3 (13%) involved elephant trunk repair. There was 1 operative death (4%). Four patients (17%) had strokes (all but 1 fully recovered), and 1 (4%) had renal failure. The survival rate was 90% at 1 year and 67% at 3 years. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the magnitude and risk of thoracic aortic surgery involving hypothermic circulatory arrest, good outcomes can be achieved when such surgery is performed at an experienced Veterans Affairs center.

Surgical intervention for infective endocarditis in a veteran population.

BACKGROUND: Surgical management of infective endocarditis can be challenging. Veteran patients are unique because they often have significant comorbidities, and surgical management of endocarditis in this population has not been well described. METHODS: Using a prospective database, 46 consecutive patients who underwent valve surgery for acute infective endocarditis between 1987 and 2009 were identified. Survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: All patients were men (mean age, 56 ± 9 years). The most common indication for surgical intervention was congestive heart failure (60%). The aortic valve was the only valve infected in most patients (65%). Operative morbidity and mortality were 33% and 9%, respectively. The 1-year, 3-year, 5-year, and 10-year unadjusted survival rates were 72%, 57%, 51%, and 30%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although acceptable short-term outcomes can be achieved in veterans undergoing surgical treatment for endocarditis, unadjusted long-term survival may be poor.

Superior nationwide outcomes of endovascular versus open repair for isolated descending thoracic aortic aneurysm in 11,669 patients.

OBJECTIVES: Thoracic endovascular aneurysm repair (TEVAR) was introduced in 2005 to treat descending thoracic aortic aneurysms. Little is known about TEVAR's nationwide effect on patient outcomes. We evaluated nationwide data regarding the short-term outcomes of TEVAR and open aortic repair (OAR) procedures performed in the United States during a 2-year period. METHODS: From the Nationwide Inpatient Sample data, we identified patients who had undergone surgery for an isolated descending thoracic aortic aneurysm from 2006 to 2007. Patients with aneurysm rupture, aortic dissection, vasculitis, connective tissue disorders, or concomitant aneurysms in other aortic segments were excluded. Of the remaining 11,669 patients, 9106 had undergone conventional OAR and 2563 had undergone TEVAR. Hierarchic regression analysis was used to assess the effect of TEVAR versus OAR after adjusting for confounding factors. The primary outcomes were mortality and the hospital length of stay (LOS). The secondary outcomes were the discharge status, morbidity, and hospital charges. RESULTS: The patients who had undergone TEVAR were older (69.5 ± 12.7 vs 60.2 ± 14.2 years; P < .001) and had higher Deyo comorbidity scores (4.6 ± 1.8 vs 3.3 ± 1.8; P < .001). The unadjusted LOS was shorter for the TEVAR patients (7.7 ± 11 vs 8.8 ± 7.9 days), but the unadjusted mortality was similar (TEVAR 2.3% vs OAR 2.3%; P = 1.0). The proportion of nonelective interventions was similar between the 2 groups (TEVAR 15.9% vs OAR 15.8%; P = .9). The TEVAR and OAR techniques produced similar risk-adjusted mortality rates; however, the TEVAR patients had 60% fewer complications overall (odds ratio, 0.39; P < .001) and a shorter LOS (by 1.3 days). The TEVAR patients' hospital charges were greater by $6713 (95% confidence interval $1869 to $11,556; P < .001). However, the TEVAR patients were 4 times more likely to have a routine discharge to home. CONCLUSIONS: The nationwide data on TEVAR for descending thoracic aortic aneurysms have associated this procedure with better in-hospital outcomes than OAR, even though TEVAR was selectively performed in patients who were almost 1 decade older than the OAR patients. Compared with OAR, TEVAR was associated with a shorter hospital LOS and fewer complications but significantly greater hospital charges.

Is an age of 80 years or greater an important predictor of short-term outcomes of isolated aortic valve replacement in veterans?

BACKGROUND: There is a popular perception that aortic valve replacement (AVR) in octogenarians carries a high risk related primarily to advanced age. METHODS: Using the Department of Veterans Affairs Continuous Improvement in Cardiac Surgery Program, we identified patients who underwent AVR between 1991 and 2007. A prediction model was constructed using stepwise logistic regression methodology for outcome comparisons. RESULTS: Compared with younger patients (age < 80 years; n = 6,638), older patients (age > or = 80; n = 504) had a higher prevalence of baseline comorbidities. In a comparison of patients propensity-matched by risk profile (459 from each group), the older group had a higher morbidity rate (21.1% vs 15.5%; p < 0.03) but a similar mortality rate (5.2% vs 3.3%; p = 0.19) compared with the younger group. CONCLUSIONS: After risk adjustment, age of 80 years or greater was independently associated with higher AVR-related morbidity but not mortality. Further work is needed to identify ways to reduce operative morbidity in the extremely elderly.

Impact of ACGME work-hour restrictions on the outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting in a cohort of 600,000 patients.

BACKGROUND: Since the resident physician 80-h/wk restriction was implemented on July 1, 2003, little has been learned about the impact of this reform on patient outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database, we identified 614,177 patients who underwent isolated CABG from 1998 through 2007. Of the 374,947 patients who underwent CABG at a teaching hospital, 133,285 (36%) belonged to the post-reform group. Hierarchic logistic and multivariable regression models were used to assess the independent effect of the reform after adjusting for potential confounding factors. Outcomes assessed were operative morbidity and mortality, and length of stay. Outcomes of CABG patients at non-teaching hospitals were used to control for time bias. RESULTS: In teaching hospitals, after risk adjustment, the post-reform era was associated with lower mortality risk (odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-0.63; P < 0.001) but greater operative morbidity (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.43-1.58; P < 0.001). Although the implementation of work-hour reforms was correlated with shorter lengths of stay, there were fewer routine home discharges (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.73-0.76; P < 0.001). Outcomes at non-teaching hospitals were similar, except that operative morbidity rates were lower during the post-reform era. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the resident work-hour reform in teaching hospitals did not affect mortality rates in CABG patients but was associated with increased morbidity. Further studies are needed to identify the reasons for the post-reform increase in postoperative complications at teaching hospitals.

Aortic valve replacement: mortality predictions of surgeons versus risk model.

BACKGROUND: We compared the abilities of surgeons and of an established risk model to predict operative mortality after aortic valve replacement (AVR), and we investigated scenarios that give rise to discrepancies between these predictions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We reviewed all AVR procedures performed at a Veterans Affairs institution between 1993 and 2008 (n = 317). The abilities of the Continuous Improvement in Cardiac Surgery Program (CICSP) risk model and of the surgeons to predict operative mortality were assessed by computing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). We investigated cases in which there was a significant discrepancy (2-fold or greater) between the surgeons' and the CICSP model's predictions. RESULTS: The predictive abilities of both the surgeons and the CICSP risk model were good-AUC values were 0.73 and 0.75, respectively (P = 0.84)-but the surgeons' mean estimate of mortality risk (8.3% +/- 8.3%) exceeded both the CICSP model's estimate (6.6% +/- 8.3%) (P < 0.0001) and the actual mortality rate (5.4%). There was significant discrepancy between the two sources of prediction in 38% (122/317) of cases. In this subset of cases, the CICSP did not adjust for factors that influenced risk stratification by the surgeon in 33% (40/122) of cases; the most common of these factors were anticipation of a more extensive procedure, severe pulmonary disease other than chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hepatic disease, and pulmonary hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: Both surgeons and the CICSP model performed well in risk-stratifying AVR patients, but the surgeons tended to overestimate the risk. The CICSP model did not capture some disease entities considered relevant in estimating mortality by surgeons.

The impact of obesity on long-term survival after coronary artery bypass grafting.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a well-known risk factor for coronary artery disease. The objective of our study was to examine the impact of obesity on long-term survival after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using prospectively gathered data, we reviewed records of 1163 consecutive patients who underwent isolated primary CABG between 1997 and 2007. We compared outcomes of obese patients (body mass index [BMI] > or = 30 kg/m(2); n = 472) and non-obese patients (BMI < 30 kg/m(2); n = 691). Long-term survival was assessed by using Kaplan-Meier curves generated by log-rank tests and adjusted for confounding factors with Cox logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Obese patients were slightly younger (60 +/- 8 versus 63 +/- 9y; P < 0.0001), were less likely to be current tobacco smokers (30% versus 41%; P < 0.0001), had a higher incidence of diabetes (51% versus 33%; P < 0.0001), and had a lower incidence of cerebral vascular disease (18% versus 24%; P = 0.009) than non-obese patients. The two groups of patients had similar 30-d rates of mortality (1.3% versus 1.5%; P = 0.8) and major adverse cardiac events (2.3% versus 2.5%; P = 0.9). Adjusted Cox regression survival curves were also similar between the two groups of patients (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.2; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-1.8; P = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Obese patients who underwent CABG had 30-d mortality rates and early outcomes similar to those of non-obese patients. Long-term survival was also similar between these two groups of patients after adjustment for confounding variables.

Severe aortic stenosis in a veteran population: treatment considerations and survival.

BACKGROUND: We examined factors affecting the choice of surgical versus medical treatment of severe aortic stenosis and evaluated associated patient survival. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed data from all patients diagnosed with severe aortic stenosis at a Veterans Affairs medical facility between January 1997 and April 2008. RESULTS: Of 345 patients with severe aortic stenosis, 260 (75%) underwent surgical evaluation, and 205 (59%) underwent aortic valve replacement (AVR). The patient's decision to decline surgical referral or AVR (n = 47) and severe comorbidities (n = 34) were the top two reasons for medical treatment rather than AVR. The AVR group was younger (69.5 +/- 9.6 years versus 75.7 +/- 8.6 years; p < 0.001) and had a higher prevalence of symptoms (96% versus 71%; p < 0.001) than the medical group. The medical group had a lower cardiac ejection fraction (0.42 +/- 0.15 versus 0.50 +/- 0.12; p < 0.001) and was less likely to be independent in activities of daily living (64% versus 74%). The AVR group had higher survival rates than the medical patients at 1 year (92% versus 65%), 3 years (85% versus 29%), and 5 years (73% versus 16%; log-rank test p < 0.0001). Valve replacement was independently associated with decreased mortality (hazard ratio, 0.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.10 to 0.27; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The management of severe aortic stenosis in veterans is sometimes limited to medical evaluation and treatment. Surgeons should be involved in the complex process of risk assessment, to select patients with severe aortic stenosis who would benefit from the survival advantage associated with AVR.