The Impact of Frailty on Outcomes of Proximal Aortic Aneurysm Surgery: A Nationwide Analysis.

(1) Background: This study examines frailty's impact on proximal aortic surgery outcomes. (2) Methods: All patients with a thoracic aortic aneurysm who underwent aortic root, ascending aorta, or arch surgery from the 2016-2017 National Inpatient Sample were included. Frailty was defined by the Adjusted Clinical Groups Frailty Indicator. Outcomes of interest included in-hospital mortality and a composite of death, stroke, acute kidney injury (AKI), and major bleeding (MACE). (3) Results: Among 5745 patients, 405 (7.0%) met frailty criteria. Frail patients were older, with higher rates of chronic pulmonary disease, diabetes, and chronic kidney disease. There was no difference in in-hospital death (4.9% vs. 2.4%, p = 0.169); however, the frail group exhibited higher rates of stroke and AKI. Frail patients had a longer length of stay (17 vs. 8 days), and higher rates of non-home discharge (74.1% vs. 54.3%) than non-frail patients (both p < 0.001). Sensitivity analysis confirmed increased morbidity and mortality in frail individuals. After adjusting for patient comorbidities and hospital characteristics, frailty independently predicted MACE (OR 4.29 [1.88-9.78], p = 0.001), while age alone did not (OR 1.00 [0.99-1.02], p = 0.568). Urban teaching center status predicted a lower risk of MACE (OR 0.27 [0.08-0.94], p = 0.039). (4) Conclusions: Frailty is associated with increased morbidity in proximal aortic surgery and is a more significant predictor of mortality than age. Coordinated treatment in urban institutions may enhance outcomes for this high-risk group.

Race and Socioeconomic Disparities in Proximal Aortic Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Substantial socioeconomics-based disparities exist in cardiac surgery. Although there are robust data for revascularization and valve procedures, the effect of race and socioeconomic status on proximal aortic surgery is not well studied. This study analyzed the impact of race and socioeconomic status on in-hospital outcomes after proximal aortic surgery. METHODS: All adult patients who underwent proximal aortic surgery for aortic dissection or thoracic aneurysm from the 2016 to 2018 National Inpatient Sample were included. Primary outcomes included in-hospital mortality and in-hospital composite morbidity (stroke, pulmonary embolus, major bleeding, acute kidney injury, or permanent pacemaker insertion). Adjusted outcomes were assessed with multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A weighted total of 32,895 patients were included; 25,461 (77.4%) classified as White, 3224 (9.8%) Black, 2039 (6.2%) Hispanic, and 2171 (6.6%) other. Black and Hispanic patients had significantly lower median household income, higher proportion of self-pay insurance status, younger age, higher comorbidity burden, and a higher proportion of urgent or emergency procedures compared with White patients. There was no significant difference in observed in-hospital mortality by patient race, but non-White patients had significantly higher composite morbidity. On adjusted analysis, there was no difference in in-hospital mortality, but non-White race was an independent predictor of in-hospital morbidity (adjusted odds ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.4-1.8; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients of non-White race who undergo proximal aortic surgery have less insurance coverage, more urgent procedures, and a higher comorbidity burden than White patients, disparities that translate to significantly higher morbidity in non-White. A greater focus on nonfatal outcome differentials and improving access to care likely will improve aortic surgery disparities.

Coronary artery bypass grafting at safety-net versus non-safety-net hospitals.

Objectives: Safety-net hospitals (SNHs) provide essential services to predominantly underserved patients regardless of their ability to pay. We hypothesized that patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) would have inferior observed outcomes at SNHs compared with non-SNHs but that matched cohorts would have comparable outcomes. Methods: We queried the Nationwide Readmissions Database for patients who underwent isolated CABG from 2016 to 2018. We ranked hospitals by the percentage of all admissions in which the patient was uninsured or insured with Medicaid; hospitals in the top quartile were designated as SNHs. We used propensity-score matching to mitigate the effect of confounding factors and compare outcomes between SNHs and non-SNHs. Results: A total of 525,179 patients underwent CABG, including 96,133 (18.3%) at SNHs, who had a greater burden of baseline comorbidities (median Elixhauser score 8 vs 7; P = .04) and more frequently required urgent surgery (57.1% vs 52.8%; P < .001). Observed in-hospital mortality (2.1% vs 1.8%; P = .004) and major morbidity, length of stay (9 vs 8 days; P < .001), cost ($46,999 vs $38,417; P < .001), and readmission rate at 30 (12.4% vs 11.3%) and 90 days (19.0% vs 17.7%) were greater at SNHs (both P < .001). After matching, none of these differences persisted except length of stay (9 vs 8 days) and cost ($46,977 vs $39,343) (both P < .001). Conclusions: After matching, early outcomes after CABG were comparable at SNHs and non-SNHs. Improved discharge resources could reduce length of stay and curtail cost, improving the value of CABG at SNHs.

Frailty Index is Associated with Treatment Decisions for Stage I Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer at a High-Burden Safety-Net Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Lobectomy remains the cornerstone of care for stage I NSCLC while sublobar resection and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) are reserved for patients with smaller tumors and/or poor operative risk. Herein, we investigate the effect of patient frailty on treatment modality for stage I NSCLC at a safety-net hospital. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of stage I NSCLC patients between 2006 and 2015. Demographics, patient characteristics, and treatment rates were compared to a National Cancer Database cohort of stage 1 NSCLC patients. Patient frailty was assessed using the MSK-FI. RESULTS: In our cohort of 304 patients, significantly fewer patient were treated via lobectomy compared to national rates (P < .001). Advanced age (P = .02), lower FEV1 (P < .001) and DLCO (P < .001), not socioeconomic factors, were associated with higher utilization of non-lobectomy (sublobar resection or SBRT). Patients with lower MSK-FI were more likely to receive any surgical treatment (P = .01) and lobectomy (P = .03). Lower MSK-FI was an independent predictor for use of lobectomy over other modalities (OR 0.75, P = .04). MSK-FI (OR 0.64, P = .02), and FEV1 (OR 1.03, P < .001) were independently associated with use of SBRT over any surgery. CONCLUSION: Our safety-net hospital performed fewer lobectomies and lung resections compared to national rates. Patient frailty and clinical factors were associated with use of SBRT or sublobar resection suggesting that the increased illness burden of a safety-net population may drive the lower use of lobectomy. The MSK-FI may help physicians stratify patient risk to guide stage I NSCLC management.

Racial/ethnic differences persist in treatment choice and outcomes in isolated intervention for coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: Studies have noted racial/ethnic disparities in coronary artery disease intervention strategies. We investigated trends and outcomes of coronary artery disease treatment choice (coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention) stratified by race/ethnicity. METHODS: We queried the National Inpatient Sample for patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention (2002-2017). Outcomes were stratified by race/ethnicity (White, African American, Hispanic, Asian). Multivariable logistic regression evaluated associations between race/ethnicity and receiving coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention, in-hospital mortality, and costs. RESULTS: Over the 15-year period, 2,426,917 isolated coronary artery bypass grafting surgeries and 7,184,515 percutaneous coronary interventions were performed. Compared with White patients, African American patients were younger (62 [interquartile range, 53-70] vs 66 [interquartile range, 57-75] years), were more likely to have Medicaid insurance (12.2% vs 4.4%), and had more comorbidities (Charlson-Deyo index, 1.9 ± 1.6 vs 1.7 ± 1.6) (all P < .01). After adjustment for patient comorbidities, presence of acute myocardial infarction, insurance status, and geography, African Americans were the least likely of all racial/ethnic groups to undergo coronary artery bypass grafting (odds ratio, 0.76; P < .01), a consistent trend throughout the study. African American patients had higher risk-adjusted mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting (odds ratio, 1.09; P < .01). Race/ethnicity was not associated with increased mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention. African American patients had higher hospitalization costs for coronary artery bypass grafting (+$5816; P < .01) and percutaneous coronary intervention (+$856; P < .01) after controlling for confounders. CONCLUSIONS: In this contemporary national analysis, risk-adjusted frequency of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary artery disease differed by race/ethnicity. African American patients had lower odds of undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting and worse outcomes. Reasons for these differences merit further investigation to identify opportunities to reduce potential disparities.

Readmission After Bioprosthetic vs Mechanical Mitral Valve Replacement in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Choosing between a bioprosthetic and a mechanical mitral valve is an important decision for both patients and surgeons. We compared patient outcomes and readmission rates after bioprosthetic mitral valve replacement (Bio-MVR) vs mechanical mitral valve replacement (Mech-MVR). METHODS: The Nationwide Readmissions Database was queried to identify 31 474 patients who underwent isolated MVR (22 998 Bio-MVR, 8476 Mech-MVR) between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. Propensity score matching by age, sex, elective status, and comorbidities was used to compare outcomes between matched cohorts by prosthesis type. Freedom from readmission within the first calendar year was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and compared between matched cohorts. RESULTS: Bio-MVR patients were older (median age, 69 vs 57 years; P < .001) and had more comorbidities (median Elixhauser score, 14 vs 11; P < .001) compared with Mech-MVR patients. After propensity score matching (n = 15 549), Bio-MVR patients had similar operative mortality (3.5% vs 3.4%; P = .97) and costs ($50 958 vs $49 782; P = .16) but shorter lengths of stay (8 vs 9 days; P < .001) and fewer 30-day (16.0% vs 18.1%; P = .04) and 90-day (23.8% vs 26.8%; P = .01) readmissions compared with Mech-MVR patients. The difference in readmissions persisted at 1 year (P = .045). Readmission for bleeding or coagulopathy complications was less common with Bio-MVR (5.7% vs 10.1%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Readmission was more common after Mech-MVR than after Bio-MVR. Identifying and closely observing patients at high risk for bleeding complications may bridge the readmissions gap between Bio-MVR and Mech-MVR.

Contemporary socioeconomic-based disparities in cardiac surgery: Are we closing the disparities gap?

OBJECTIVE: Female sex and lower income residence location are associated with worse health care outcomes. In this study we analyzed the national, contemporary status of socioeconomic disparities in cardiac surgery. METHODS: Adult patients within the Nationwide Readmissions Database who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), mitral valve (MV) replacement, MV repair, or ascending aorta surgery from 2016 to 2018 were included. Sex and median household income quartile (MHIQ) were compared within each surgery group. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Multivariable analysis was adjusted for patient characteristics and hospital-level factors. RESULTS: A weighted total of 358,762 patients were included. Fewer women underwent CABG (22.3%), SAVR (32.2%), MV repair (37.5%), and ascending aorta surgery (29.7%). In adjusted analysis, female sex was independently associated with higher 30-day mortality rates after CABG (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.6), SAVR (aOR, 1.4), MV repair (aOR, 1.8), and ascending aorta surgery (aOR, 1.2; all P < .03). The lowest MHIQ was independently associated with higher 30-day mortality rates after CABG (aOR, 1.4), SAVR (aOR, 1.5), MV replacement (aOR, 1.3), and ascending aorta surgery (aOR, 1.8; all P < .004) compared with the highest quartile. Women were less likely to receive care at urban and academic hospitals for CABG compared with men. Patients of lower MHIQ received less care at urban and academic institutions for all surgeries. CONCLUSIONS: Despite advances in the techniques and safety, women and patients of lower socioeconomic status continue to have worse outcomes after cardiac surgery. These persistent disparities warrant the need for root cause analysis.

Outcomes, Cost, and Readmission After Surgical Aortic or Mitral Valve Replacement at Safety-Net and Non-Safety-Net Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Safety-net hospitals provide essential services to vulnerable patients with complex medical and socioeconomic circumstances. We hypothesized that matched patients at safety-net hospitals and non-safety-net hospitals would have comparable outcomes, costs, and readmission rates after isolated surgical aortic valve replacement (AVR) or mitral valve replacement (MVR). METHODS: The National Readmissions Database was queried to identify patients who underwent isolated AVR (n = 109 744) or MVR (n = 31 475) from 2016 to 2018. Safety-net burden was defined as the percentage of patients who were uninsured or insured with Medicaid, with hospitals in the top quartile designated as safety-net hospitals. After propensity score matching, outcomes for AVR and MVR at safety-net hospitals vs non-safety-net hospitals were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 17 925 AVRs (16%) and 5516 MVRs (18%) were performed at safety-net hospitals, and these patients had higher comorbidity rates, had lower socioeconomic status, and more frequently required urgent surgery. Observed inhospital mortality was similar between safety-net hospitals and non-safety-net hospitals (AVR 2.2% vs 2.1%, P = .4; MVR 4.8% vs 4.3%, P = .1). After matching, rates of inhospital mortality, major morbidity, and readmission were similar; however, safety-net hospitals had longer length of stay after AVR (7 vs 6 days, P = .001) and higher total cost after AVR ($49 015 vs $42 473, P < .001) and MVR ($59 253 vs $52 392, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Isolated surgical AVR and MVR are both performed at safety-net hospitals with outcomes comparable to those at non-safety-net hospitals, supporting efforts to expand access to these procedures for underserved populations. Investment in care coordination resources to reduce length of stay and curtail cost at safety-net hospitals is warranted.

Risk Factors for Lung Cancer in an Underrepresented Safety-Net Screening Cohort.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND: The USPSTF (United States Preventive Services Task Force) guidelines suggest criteria centering on smoking status and age to select patients for lung cancer screening. Despite the significant advances in screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), cancer detection rate is low (1.1%), highlighting the need to investigate possible ways to refine the current lung cancer screening strategy. Our aim was to determine clinical risk factors predictive of lung cancer in an urban safety-net hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of 2847 patients who received LDCT screening for lung cancer between 3/1/2015 and 12/31/2019. Patient demographics and medical history were collected. A bivariate logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of lung cancer. RESULTS: Compared to the National Lung Cancer Screening Trial (NLST) population, our screening cohort had significantly more African Americans (38.2% vs. 4.5%, P < .0001), more obesity (32.7% vs. 28.3%, P < .0001), and higher rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (45.9% vs. 5.0%, P < .0001). The strongest predictors of lung cancer were COPD (odds ratio [OR] = 2.14, P < .0001) and a family history of lung cancer (OR = 2.77, P < .0001). Age (OR = 1.04, P< .001) and pack years (OR = 1.01, P< .001) were less predictive. CONCLUSION: A diagnosis of COPD and family history of lung cancer were most predictive of lung cancer in a screening cohort at our urban safety-net hospital. Future studies should focus on whether inclusion of these additional risk-factors improves proportion of lung cancer detected via screening.

Lung Cancer Risk in Suspicious Lung Nodules With Negative Positron Emission Tomography.

BACKGROUND: Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (LungRADS) Category 4 represents lung nodules with the highest likelihood of cancer. For LungRADS-4 lesions, if positron emission tomography (PET) is negative, no uniform guideline currently exists on subsequent follow-up, particularly whether the surveillance interval can be extended. We sought to investigate the incidence of cancer, our surveillance practice, and any clinical factors associated with cancer in this patient subset. METHODS: We retrospectively stratified LungRADS-4 patients screened at our institution from March 2015 to February 2019 into subgroups: PET positive, PET negative, and no PET performed. PET negativity was defined as the absence of a radiologist's suspicion or a maximum standardized uptake value at or below the mediastinal value. RESULTS: Of the 191 LungRADS-4 patients identified, 67 (35.1%) met the criteria for PET negativity. Cancer was diagnosed in 28.8% of the entire cohort (55/191), 77.8% of the PET-positive subgroup (35/45), 22.4% of the PET-negative subgroup (15/67), and 6.3% of the no PET subgroup (5/79). The most common follow-up modality after a negative PET was a computed tomography (47/67, 70.1%), with a median interval of 3.1 months. Clinical variables including nodule location/size, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, family history of lung cancer, pack-years, and number of years quit in former smokers were not significantly associated with greater cancer risk among the PET-negative subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: For LungRADS-4/PET-negative lesions the cancer risk remained high despite a lack of activity on PET. As such we believe the current surveillance practice of continuing to follow LungRADS-4/PET-negative patients as LungRADS-4 patients is appropriate.

Age, Race, and Income Are Associated With Lower Screening Rates at a Safety Net Hospital.

BACKGROUND: While lung cancer screening improves cancer-specific mortality and is recommended for high-risk patients, barriers to screening still exist. We sought to determine our institution's (an urban safety net hospital) screening rate and to identify socioeconomic barriers to lung cancer screening. METHODS: We identified 8935 smokers 55 to 80 years of age evaluated by a primary care physician between March 2015 and March 2017 at our institution. We randomly selected one-third of these (n = 2978) to review for eligibility using the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria for lung cancer screening. Using our institution's Lung Cancer Screening Program clinical tracking database, we identified patients who were screened from March 2015 to March 2017. We collected demographic information (race, primary language, education status, and median income) and evaluated possible associations with screening. RESULTS: Among our institution population, 99 patients meeting U.S. Preventive Services Task Force screening criteria underwent screening computed tomography, whereas 516 eligible patients were not screened, making our institution's estimated screening rate 16.1%. Comparing the unscreened population with those who received screening at our institution, the unscreened population was significantly older (median age of screened patients was 63 years, of unscreened patients was 66 years; P < .001). African Americans had a lower screening rate (37.6% of the screened population and 47.5% of the unscreened population; P < .001). Unscreened patients had a lower annual household income. CONCLUSIONS: The lung cancer screening rate at our hospital is 16.1%. Unscreened patients were older, were more likely to be African American, and had a lower median income. These findings highlight possible screening barriers and potential areas for targeted strategies to decrease disparities in lung cancer screening.

Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes and Platelets Are Prognostic in Surgical pT1 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of prognostic factors for patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) undergoing operations. We investigated the prognostic role of preoperative complete blood count values in patients with stage I NSCLC patients undergoing operations. METHODS: A retrospective medical record review was performed of patients who underwent operations for stage I NSCLC between 2000 and 2015. Patients who died within 30 days of the operations were excluded. The primary end point was recurrence. Preoperative complete blood count values were analyzed, and a median value was used as the cutoff. Statistical analysis used χ2 and t tests along with univariate and multivariate analyses by Cox regression modeling. RESULTS: The study included 103 patients. A high lymphocyte count was significantly associated with recurrence (5-year recurrence-free survival [RFS] of 69.8% for high vs 95.7% for low, P = .003), as well as high platelet (5-year RFS of 72.0% for high vs 91.8% for low, P = .02). Independent prognostic factors on multivariate analysis were high lymphocyte (hazard ratio [HR], 7.27; P = .005) and platelet counts (HR, 7.49; P = .003) as well as tumor (HR, 5.40; P = .008) and treatment characteristics (HR, 4.59; P = .01). Among patients with pT1 lesions, high lymphocyte (HR, 8.41; P = .03) and high platelet counts (HR, 19.78; P = .004) remained independent prognostic factors. Neither NLR nor PLR were significantly associated with recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with pathologic stage I NSCLC undergoing surgical resection, the preoperative blood count from peripheral blood may provide prognostic value. Of significance, in patients with pT1 N0 NSCLC, high lymphocyte count and high platelet count were associated with higher recurrence.

Presentation, Treatment, and Outcomes of Vulnerable Populations With Esophageal Cancer Treated at a Safety-Net Hospital.

Social determinants of health have been associated with poor outcomes in esophageal cancer. Primary language and immigration status have not been examined in relation to esophageal cancer outcomes. This study aims to investigate the impact of these variables on stage of presentation, treatment, and outcomes of esophageal cancer patients at an urban safety-net hospital. Clinical data of patients with esophageal cancer at our institution between 2003 and 2018 were reviewed. Demographic, tumor, and treatment characteristics were obtained. Outcomes included median overall survival, stage-specific survival, and utilization of surgical and perioperative therapy. Statistical analysis was conducted using Chi-square test, Fisher's exact tests, Kaplan-Meier method, and logistic regression. There were 266 patients; 77% were male. Mean age was 63.9 years, 23.7% were immigrants, 33.5% were uninsured/Medicaid, and 16.2% were non-English speaking. Adenocarcinoma was diagnosed in 55.3% and squamous cell in 41.0%. More patients of non-Hispanic received esophagectomies when compared to those of Hispanic origin (64% vs 25%, P = 0.012). Immigrants were less likely to undergo esophagectomy compared to US-born patients (42% vs 76%, P = 0.001). Patients with adenocarcinoma were more likely than squamous cell carcinoma patients to undergo esophagectomy (odds ratio = 4.40, 95% confidence interval 1.61-12.01, P = 0.004). More commercially/privately insured patients (75%) received perioperative therapy compared to Medicaid/uninsured (54%) and Medicare (49%) patients (P = 0.030). There was no association between demographic factors and the utilization of perioperative chemoradiation for patients with operable disease. Approximately 23% of patients with operable disease were too frail or declined to undergo surgical intervention. In this small single-center study, race and primary language were not associated with median survival for patients treated for esophageal cancer. US-born patients experienced higher surgical utilization and privately insured patients were more likely to receive perioperative therapy. Many patients with operable cancer were too frail to undergo a curative surgery. Studies should expand on the relationships between social determinants of health and nonclinical services on delivery of care and survival of vulnerable populations with esophageal cancer.

Esophageal Cancer Presentation, Treatment, and Outcomes Vary With Hospital Safety-Net Burden.

BACKGROUND: Social determinants of health affect diagnosis and delivery of care to patients with esophageal cancer. This study hypothesized that hospital safety-net burden affects presentation, treatment, and outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients with esophageal cancer (2004 to 2013). Treating facilities were categorized according to their relative burden of uninsured or Medicaid-insured patients. Hospitals with low (LBH), medium (MBH), and high (HBH) safety-net burden were compared with respect to patient demographics, disease and treatment characteristics, and survival using χ2 analysis, Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and multivariable modeling. RESULTS: There were 56,115 patients from 1,215 facilities. HBH treated a greater proportion of racial and ethnic minorities and patients with lower socioeconomic status. Patients at HBH presented at later stages and received primary surgical therapy less often than at MBH and LBH. Survival for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma did not differ significantly between HBH and LBH after adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, income, comorbidity, stage, histologic type, tumor location, facility type, insurance status, and treatment modality (hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.99 to 1.14; p = 0.093). HBH were associated with a higher mortality risk than LBH for patients with squamous cell carcinoma (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 1.20; p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: There is a mortality risk for patients with squamous cell carcinoma, but not for adenocarcinoma at HBH compared with LBH. Further analysis of unadjusted variables such as performance status, completion of therapy, and continuity of care, and others should be undertaken among safety-net hospitals with the goal of creating appropriate clinical pathways for care of esophageal cancer in vulnerable populations.