Cardiac Surgery Outcomes: A Case for Increased Screening and Treatment of Obstructive Sleep Apnea.

BACKGROUND: Because of the limited published information on complications that obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients experience during and after cardiac surgery, we investigated OSA as a risk factor for postoperative outcomes. METHODS: This project used the Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group's data collected between 2011 and 2017 based on The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database Data Collections form. A retrospective analysis of 1555 patients with OSA and 10,450 patients without OSA across 5 medical centers undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting, isolated valve surgery, and combined coronary artery bypass grafting valve surgery was conducted. We used 1:1 nearest-neighbor propensity score matching with no replacement to balance characteristics among patients with and without OSA. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant increased risk of postoperative pneumonia, increased length of total and postoperative stay, and time to initial extubation. Two outcomes trended toward significance: intra- and postoperative intraaortic balloon pump use. Outcomes that failed to show statistical significance were surgical site infection, atrial fibrillation, cerebrovascular accident, permanent pacemaker placement, and blood products given. A chart review conducted on a subset of the study cohort revealed that more than 40% of OSA patients did not receive continuous positive airway pressure or bilevel positive airway pressure therapy postoperatively during their hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Our study aligns with the literature in concluding that OSA has deleterious effects on postoperative outcomes of cardiac surgery patients. Further research to better stratify OSA patients by severity are still needed. Additionally heightened awareness of the need to screen, diagnose, and properly treat patients for OSA is needed.

Comparative effectiveness of revascularization strategies for early coronary artery disease: A multicenter analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The goal of this analysis was to examine the comparative effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention among patients aged less than 60 years. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective analysis of all cardiac revascularization procedures from 2005 to 2015 among 7 medical centers. Inclusion criteria were age less than 60 years and 70% stenosis or greater in 1 or more major coronary artery distribution. Exclusion criteria were left main 50% or greater, ST-elevation myocardial infarction, emergency status, and prior revascularization procedure. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, the final study cohort included 1945 patients who underwent cardiac surgery and 2938 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary end point was all-cause mortality stratified by revascularization strategy. Secondary end points included stroke, repeat revascularization, and 30-day mortality. We used inverse probability weighting to balance differences among the groups. RESULTS: After adjustment, there was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (surgery: 0.8%; percutaneous coronary intervention: 0.7%, P = .86) for patients with multivessel disease. Patients undergoing surgery had a higher risk of stroke (1.3% [n = 25] vs 0.07% [n = 2], P < .001). Overall, surgery was associated with superior 10-year survival compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.88; P = .002). Repeat procedures occurred in 13.4% (n = 270) of the surgery group and 36.4% (n = 1068) of the percutaneous coronary intervention group, with both groups mostly undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention as their second operation. Accounting for death as a competing risk, at 10 years, surgery resulted in a lower cumulative incidence of repeat revascularization compared with percutaneous coronary intervention (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.40; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients aged less than 60 years with 2-vessel disease that includes the left anterior descending or 3-vessel coronary artery disease, surgery was associated with greater long-term survival and decreased risk of repeat revascularization.

The 30-Year Influence of a Regional Consortium on Quality Improvement in Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group (NNECDSG) was founded in 1987 as a regional consortium to improve cardiovascular quality in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont. We sought to assess the longitudinal impact of the NNECDSG on quality and cost of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) during the past 30 years. METHODS: Patients undergoing isolated CABG at 5 medical centers from 1987-2017 were retrospectively reviewed (n = 67,942). They were divided into 4 time periods: 1987-1999 (n = 36,885), 2000-2005 (n = 14,606), 2006-2011(n = 8470), and 2012-2017 (n = 7981). The first period was the time the NNECDSG initiated a series of quality improvement initiatives including data feedback, quality improvement training, process mapping, and site visits. RESULTS: Throughout the 4 time intervals, there was a consistent decline in in-hospital mortality, from 3.4% to 1.8% despite an increase in predicted risk of mortality (P < .001), and a significant decline in in-hospital morbidity, including return to the operating room for bleeding, acute kidney injury, mediastinitis, and low output failure (P < .001). Median length of stay decreased from 7 to 5 days (P < .001), which translated into potential savings of $82,722,023. There was a decrease in use of red blood cells from 3.1 units to 2.6 units per patient in the most current time, which translated into potential savings of $1,985,456. CONCLUSIONS: By using collaborative quality improvement initiatives, the NNECDSG has succeeded in significant, sustained improvements in quality and cost for CABG during the past 30 years. These data support the utility of a regional consortium in improving quality.

Tissue versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in younger patients: A multicenter analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to examine the long-term survival of patients between the ages of 50 and 65 years who underwent tissue versus mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in a multicenter cohort. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of all AVR patients (n = 9388) from 1991 to 2015 among 7 medical centers reporting to a prospectively maintained clinical registry was conducted. Inclusion criteria were: patients aged 50 to 65 years who underwent isolated AVR. Baseline comorbidities were balanced using inverse probability weighting for a study cohort of 1449 AVRs: 840 tissue and 609 mechanical. The primary end point of the analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included in-hospital morbidity, 30-day mortality, length of stay, and risk of reoperation. RESULTS: During the study period, there was a significant shift from mechanical to tissue valves (P < .001). There was no significant difference in major in-hospital morbidity, mortality, or length of hospitalization. Also, there was no significant difference in adjusted 15-year survival between mechanical versus tissue valves (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.13; P = .29), although tissue valves were associated with a higher risk of reoperation with a cumulative incidence of 19.1% (95% CI, 14.4%-24.3%) versus 3.0% (95% CI, 1.7%-4.9%) for mechanical valves. The reoperative 30-day mortality rate was 2.4% (n = 2) for the series. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients 50 to 65 years old who underwent AVR, there was no difference in adjusted long-term survival according to prosthesis type, but tissue valves were associated with a higher risk of reoperation.