Hospital and Surgeon Surgical Valvar Volume and Survival after Multi-Valve Cardiac Surgery in Medicare Beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVE: Long-term outcomes after multi-valve cardiac surgery remain under-evaluated. METHODS: Medicare administrative claims from 2008-2019 identified beneficiaries undergoing multi-valve surgery. Operative characteristics were doubly-adjudicated using International Classification of Diseases and Current Procedural Technology codes. A multivariable flexible parametric model evaluated predictors of survival; regression standardization was performed to predict standardized survival probabilities (SSP) at varying percentiles of annual valvar volume. RESULTS: Of 476,092 cardiac surgeries involving the aortic (AVS), mitral (MVS), or tricuspid (TVS) valve, 63,083 (13.3%) were identified as involving multi-valve surgery: 22,884 MVS+TVS, 30,697 AVS+MVS, 3,443 AVS+TVS and 6,059 AVS+MVS+TVS. Surgery occurred at 1,157 hospitals by 2,922 surgeons. Annual valvar volume (total AVS+MVS+TVS) was tallied for surgeons and hospitals. Median survival varied substantially by type of multi-valve surgery: 8.09 [7.90-8.24] years in MVS/TVS, 6.65 [6.49-6.81] years in AVS/MVS, 5.77 [5.37-6.13] in AVS/TVS, and 6.02 [5.64-6.38] in AVS/MVS/TVS. SSPs were calculated across combined hospital/surgeon volume percentiles; the median SSP increased with increasing percentile of combined hospital/surgeon volume: 5%tile: 5.77 [5.58,5.98], 25%tile: 6.18 [6.07,6.28], 50%tile: 6.56 [6.44,6.68], 75%tile: 6.86 [6.75,6.97], and 95%tile: 7.58 [7.34,7.83] years, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Survival varied significantly by type of multi-valve surgery, worsened with addition of concomitant interventions and improved substantially with increasing annual hospital and surgeon volume. Hospital volume was associated with an improved early hazard for death that abated beyond 3 months post-surgery), while surgeon volume was associated with an improved hazard for death that persisted even beyond the first post-operative year. Consideration should be given to referring multi-valve cases to high-volume hospitals and surgeons.

Incidence of hyponatremia in patients given levetiracetam vs. phenytoin for early posttraumatic seizure prophylaxis.

BACKGROUND: Levetiracetam and phenytoin are comparable for acute posttraumatic seizure(PTS) prophylaxis. Levetiracetam-induced hyponatremia has been reported in non-trauma patients. We studied hyponatremia in posttraumatic intracranial hemorrhage(ICH) patients receiving either drug. METHODS: Retrospective review of patients with ICH receiving PTS prophylaxis was performed. Patients were categorized by degree of sodium nadir: normal, mild, moderate, or severe, and analyzed by levetiracetam versus phenytoin. Patients were matched 2:1 regarding age and injury severity score(ISS). Incidence and treatment for hyponatremia was examined. RESULTS: 1735 ICH patients received PTS prophylaxis over an 8-year period. After exclusions and matching, there were 282 phenytoin and 564 levetiracetam patients. Age, ISS and initial sodium were comparable between the matched cohorts. There was no clinically significant difference in the rate or degree of hyponatremia. Treatment was more common in levetiracetam patients. DISCUSSION: There was a small but clinically insignificant difference in the incidence of hyponatremia in traumatic ICH patients receiving levetiracetam vs. phenytoin for PTS prophylaxis. There was an increased rate of intervention for hyponatremia in the levetiracetam group, possibly due to a coincidental preventive paradigm shift.

The impact of obesity on severity of solid organ injury in the adult population at a Level I trauma center.

BACKGROUND: The obese (body mass index, BMI > 30) have been identified as a subgroup of patients in regards to traumatic injuries. A recent study found that high-grade hepatic injuries were more common in obese than non-obese pediatric patients. This study seeks to evaluate whether similar differences exist in the adult population and examine differences in operative versus non-operative management between the obese and non-obese in blunt abdominal trauma. METHODS: Patient with trauma evaluated at an American College of Surgeons verified Level I trauma center from February 2013 to November 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients aged >18 years with blunt mechanism of injury and a BMI listed in the trauma registry were included. Patients were excluded for incomplete data, including BMI or inability to grade hepatic or splenic injury. Data collected included age, gender, BMI, injury severity score, hospital length of stay, procedures on liver or spleen, and mortality. Organ injuries were scored using the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grading scales, and were determined by either imaging or intraoperative findings. Obesity was classified as BMI > 30 compared with non-obese with BMI < 30. RESULTS: During the study period, 9481 patients were included. There were 322 spleen injuries and 237 liver injuries, with 64 patients sustaining both liver and splenic injuries. No differences existed in the percentage of high-grade hepatic or splenic injuries between the obese and non-obese. Obese patients with liver injuries were more likely to have procedural intervention than non-obese liver injuries and had higher rates of mortality. No differences were found in intervention for splenic injury between obese and non-obese. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to prior studies on adult and pediatric patients with trauma, this study found no difference between obese and non-obese patients in severity of solid organ injury after blunt abdominal trauma in the adult population. However, there was an increased rate of procedural intervention and mortality for obese patients with liver injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.