Volume of frail patients predicts outcome in frail patients after cardiac surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Recent data from major noncardiac surgery suggest that outcomes in frail patients are better predicted by a hospital's volume of frail patients specifically, rather than overall surgical volume. We sought to evaluate this "frailty volume-frailty outcome relationship" in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: We studied 72,818 frail patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or valve replacement surgery from 2010 to 2014 using the Nationwide Readmissions Database. Frailty was defined using the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups frailty-defining diagnoses indicator. Multilevel logistic regression was used to assess the independent effect of frailty volume by quartile on mortality, surgical complications, failure to rescue, nonhome discharge, 30-day readmissions, length of stay, and hospital costs in frail patients. RESULTS: In comparing the highest volume quartiles with the lowest, both overall cardiac surgical volume and volume for frail patients were significantly associated with shorter length of stay and reduced costs. However, frailty volume was also independently associated with significantly reduced in-hospital mortality (odds ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.94; P = .006) and failure to rescue (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.98; P = .03), whereas no such association was seen between overall volume and either mortality (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.10; P = .43) or failure to rescue (odds ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-1.17; P = .85). Neither frailty volume nor overall volume showed any significant relationship with the rate of 30-day readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: In frail patients undergoing cardiac surgery, surgical volume of frail patients was a significant independent of predictor of in-hospital mortality and failure to rescue, whereas overall surgical volume was not. Thus, the "frailty volume-outcome relationship" superseded the traditional "volume-outcome relationship" in frail patients with cardiac disease.

Neighborhood socioeconomic status is associated with differences in operative management and long-term survival after coronary artery bypass grafting.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize differences in operative management and surgical outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting associated with the socioeconomic context in which a patient lives. METHODS: We used a validated index of 17 variables derived from the US Census Bureau to assign socioeconomic status at the block group level to patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting at a single institution over a 16-year period. Operative mortality, stroke, renal failure, prolonged ventilation, sternal wound infection, reoperation, composite morbidity or mortality, long-term survival, and use of arterial conduits were the outcomes assessed. RESULTS: This study was composed of 6751 patients. Lower socioeconomic status was significantly associated with increased rates of stroke, renal failure, prolonged ventilation, and composite morbidity or mortality in a multivariable analysis. Low socioeconomic status was significantly associated with poorer long-term adjusted survival (hazard ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.55). Finally, lower socioeconomic status was significantly associated with decreased use of more than 1 arterial conduits in a multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The socioeconomic context in which a patient lives is significantly associated with short- and long-term outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting. There may also be variation in operative management, demonstrated by decreased use of arterial conduits. Lower rates of arterial revascularization among socioeconomically disadvantaged patients who undergo coronary artery revascularization may provide a target for intervention.

How Should ECMO Be Used Under Conditions of Severe Scarcity? A Population Study of Public Perception.

OBJECTIVE: To assess societal preferences regarding allocation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a rescue option for select patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of a nationally representative sample. SETTING: Amazon Mechanical Turk platform. PARTICIPANTS: In total, responses from 1,041 members of Amazon Mechanical Turk crowd-sourcing platform were included. Participants were 37.9 ± 12.6 years old, generally white (65%), and college-educated (66.1%). Many reported working in a healthcare setting (22.5%) and having a friend or family member who was admitted to the hospital (43.8%) or died from COVID-19 (29.9%). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Although most reported an unwillingness to stay on ECMO for >one week without signs of recovery, participants were highly supportive of ECMO utilization as a life-preserving technique on a policy level. The majority (96.7%) advocated for continued use of ECMO to treat COVID patients during periods of resource scarcity but would prioritize those with highest likelihood of recovery (50%) followed by those who were sickest regardless of survival chances (31.7%). Patients >40 years old were more likely to prefer distributing ECMO on a first-come first-served basis (21.5% v 13.3%, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Even though participants expressed hesitation regarding ECMO in personal circumstances, they were uniformly in support of using ECMO to treat COVID patients at a policy level for others who might need it, even in the setting of severe scarcity.

A pilot study describing access to emergency care in two states using a model emergency care categorization system.

OBJECTIVES: The Institute of Medicine (IOM)'s "Future of Emergency Care" report recommended the categorization and regionalization of emergency care, but no uniform system to categorize hospital emergency care capabilities has been developed. The absence of such a system limits the ability to benchmark outcomes, to develop regional systems of care, and of patients to make informed decisions when seeking emergency care. The authors sought to pilot the deployment of an emergency care categorization system in two states. METHODS: A five-tiered emergency department (ED) categorization system was designed, and a survey of all Pennsylvania and Wisconsin EDs was conducted. This 46-item survey described hospital staffing, characteristics, resources, and practice patterns. Based on responses, EDs were categorized as limited, basic, advanced, comprehensive, and pediatric critical care capable. Prehospital transport times were then used to determine population access to each level of care. RESULTS: A total of 247 surveys were received from the two states (247 of 297, 83%). Of the facilities surveyed, roughly one-quarter of hospitals provided advanced care, 10.5% provided comprehensive care, and 1.6% provided pediatric critical care. Overall, 75.1% of the general population could reach an advanced or comprehensive ED within 60 minutes by ground transportation. Among the pediatric population (age 14 years and younger), 56.2% could reach a pediatric critical care or comprehensive ED, with another 19.5% being able to access an advanced ED within 60 minutes. CONCLUSIONS: Using this categorization system, fewer than half of all EDs provide advanced or comprehensive emergency care. While the majority of the population has access to advanced or comprehensive care within an hour, a significant portion (25%) does not. This article describes how an ED categorization scheme could be developed and deployed across the United States. There are implications for prehospital planning, patient decision-making, outcomes measurement, interfacility transfer coordination, and development of regional emergency care systems.