Two Decades of Declining Medicare Reimbursement in Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Given the uncertainty of US health care finances, an understanding of reimbursement trends has become increasingly important in the field of cardiac surgery. We aimed to assess Medicare reimbursement trends for common cardiac surgical procedures from 2000 to 2022. METHODS: Reimbursement data were extracted from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule Look-Up Tool during the study period for 6 common cardiac operations: aortic valve replacement, mitral valve repair and replacement, tricuspid valve replacement, Bentall procedure, and coronary artery bypass grafting. Reimbursement rates were adjusted for inflation to 2022 US dollars using the Consumer Price Index. Total percentage change and compound annual growth rate were calculated. A split-time analysis was performed to assess trends before and after 2015. Least squares and linear regressions were performed. The R2 value was calculated for each procedure, and slope was used to determine change in reimbursements over time. RESULTS: Inflation-adjusted reimbursement decreased by 34.1% during the study period. The overall compound annual growth rate was -1.8%. Reimbursement trends differed by procedure (P < .001), with all reimbursements trending down (R2 > 0.62), except for mitral valve replacement (P = .21) and tricuspid valve replacement (P = .43). Coronary artery bypass grafting decreased the most (-44.4%), followed by aortic valve replacement (-40.1%), mitral valve repair (-38.5%), mitral valve replacement (-29.8%), Bentall procedure (-28.5%), and tricuspid valve replacement (-25.3%). In split-time analysis, reimbursement rates did not significantly change from 2000 to 2015 (P = .24) but decreased significantly from 2016 to 2022 (P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Medicare reimbursement significantly decreased for most cardiac surgical procedures. These trends justify further advocacy by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons to maintain access to quality cardiac surgical care.

Reintervention and mortality risk after total anomalous pulmonary venous connection repair.

BACKGROUND: Management of total anomalous pulmonary venous connections has been extensively studied to further improve outcomes. Our institution previously reported factors associated with mortality, recurrent obstruction, and reintervention. The study purpose was to revisit the cohort of patients and evaluate factors associated with reintervention, and mortality in early and late follow-up. METHODS: A retrospective review at our institution identified 81 patients undergoing total anomalous pulmonary venous connection repair from January 2002 to January 2018. Demographic and operative variables were evaluated. Anastomotic reintervention (interventional or surgical) and/or mortality were primary endpoints. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients met the study criteria. Follow-up ranged from 0 to 6,291 days (17.2 years), a mean of 1263 days (3.5 years). Surgical mortality was 16.1% and reintervention rates were 19.8%. In re-interventions performed, 80% occurred within 1.2 years, while 94% of mortalities were within 4.1 months. Increasing cardiopulmonary bypass times (p = 0.0001) and the presence of obstruction at the time of surgery (p = 0.025) were predictors of mortality, while intracardiac total anomalous pulmonary venous connection type (p = 0.033) was protective. Risk of reintervention was higher with increasing cardiopulmonary bypass times (p = 0.015), single ventricle anatomy (p = 0.02), and a post-repair gradient >2 mmHg on transesophageal echocardiogram (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of a larger cohort with longer follow-up demonstrated the relationship of anatomic complexity and symptoms at presentation to increased mortality risk after total anomalous pulmonary venous connection repair. The presence of a single ventricle or a post-operative confluence gradient >2 mmHg were risk factors for reintervention. These findings support those found in our initial study.

Global Makeup of Cardiothoracic Surgeons as Represented by Our Major Societies and Associations.

BACKGROUND: Prior efforts to capture the cardiothoracic surgery community rely on survey data with potentially biased or low response rates. Our goal is to better understand our community by assessing the membership directories from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS), European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), and Asian Society for Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery (ASCVTS). METHODS: Membership data were obtained from membership directories. Data for STS and EACTS were supplemented by the associations from their internal databases. The inclusion criterion was active membership; trainees and wholly incomplete profiles were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 12 053 membership profiles were included (STS, 6365; EACTS, 3661; AATS, 1495; ASCVTS, 532). Membership is 7% female overall (EACTS, 9%; STS, 6%; AATS, 5%; ASCVTS, 3%), with a median age of 57 years (STS, 60 years; EACTS, 52 years). All societies had a broad scope of practice including members who practiced both adult cardiac and thoracic (20% overall), but most members practiced adult cardiac (31% overall; ASCVTS, 48%; AATS, 36%; EACTS, 30%; STS, 28%) and were in the late stage of their careers. CONCLUSIONS: We present the makeup of our 4 major societies. We are global with a diversity of careers but concerning factors that require immediate attention. The future of our specialty depends on our ability to evolve, to promote the specialty, to attract trainees, and to include and promote female surgeons. It is crucial that we wake up to these issues, change the narrative, and create action on both individual and leadership levels.

Gastrostomy Tube Placement in Neonates Undergoing Congenital Heart Surgery: A Novel Assessment for Improving Utilization and Timing of Placement.

BACKGROUND: Neonates undergoing congenital heart defect repair require optimized nutritional support in the perioperative period. Utilization of a gastrostomy tube is not infrequent, yet optimal timing for placement is ill-defined. The objective of this study was to identify characteristics of patients whose postoperative course included gastrostomy tube placement to facilitate supplemental tube feeding following neonatal repair of congenital heart defects. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective chart review identified 64 consecutive neonates who underwent cardiac operations from 2012 to 2016. Perioperative variables were evaluated for significance in relation to gastrostomy tube placement. RESULTS: A total of 27 (42%) underwent gastrostomy tube placement. Diagnosis of a genetic syndrome was associated with the likelihood of placement of gastrostomy tube (P = .032), as were patients with single ventricle physiology (P = .0013) compared to those felt to be amenable to eventual biventricular repair. Aortic arch reconstruction (P = .029), as well as the need for delayed sternal closure (P = .05), was associated with increased frequency of gastrostomy tube placement. Postoperative outcomes including the number of days intubated (P = .0026) and the presence of significant dysphagia (P = .0034) were associated with gastrostomy placement. Additionally, genetic syndrome (P = .003), aortic arch reconstruction (P = .01), and postoperative intubation duration (P = .0024) correlated with increased length of stay, where increased length of stay was associated with gastrostomy tube placement (P = .0004). DISCUSSION: Patient characteristics that were associated with a high likelihood of eventual gastrostomy placement were identified in this study. Early recognition of such characteristics in future patients may allow for reduced time to gastrostomy tube placement, which in turn may improve perioperative growth and outcomes.

Surgical Decision Making for Left Ventricular Aneurysmectomy.

Left ventricular aneurysms may be repaired by the linear technique or endoventricular circular patch plasty technique. Choice of technique should be based on the individual patient, including cavity and aneurysm geometry. In this article, we describe the principles underlying decision making with 2 illustrative cases.

Correction to: ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2017 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease.

To more clearly reflect the relationship between iFR (instantaneous wave-free ratio) and FFR (fractional flow reserve), this Correction document highlights the following changes to the original document published in the Journal of Nuclear Cardiology; the version available at JACC [1] has been updated to reflect the changes, with JACC's Correction document available at [2].

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2017 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease : A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

The American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, have completed a 2-part revision of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization. In prior coronary revascularization AUC documents, indications for revascularization in acute coronary syndromes and stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD) were combined into 1 document. To address the expanding clinical indications for coronary revascularization, and to align the subject matter with the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, the new AUC for coronary artery revascularization were separated into 2 documents addressing SIHD and acute coronary syndromes individually. This document presents the AUC for SIHD.Clinical scenarios were developed to mimic patient presentations encountered in everyday practice. These scenarios included information on symptom status; risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing; coronary disease burden; and, in some scenarios, fractional flow reserve testing, presence or absence of diabetes, and SYNTAX score. This update provides a reassessment of clinical scenarios that the writing group felt were affected by significant changes in the medical literature or gaps from prior criteria. The methodology used in this update is similar to the initial document but employs the recent modifications in the methods for developing AUC, most notably, alterations in the nomenclature for appropriate use categorization.A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range of 4 to 6 indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario.As seen with the prior coronary revascularization AUC, revascularization in clinical scenarios with high symptom burden, high-risk features, and high coronary disease burden, as well as in patients receiving antianginal therapy, are deemed appropriate. Additionally, scenarios assessing the appropriateness of revascularization before kidney transplantation or transcatheter valve therapy are now rated. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of practice patterns that will hopefully improve physician decision making.

ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2016 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes : A Report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

The American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, have completed a 2-part revision of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization. In prior coronary revascularization AUC documents, indications for revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and stable ischemic heart disease were combined into 1 document. To address the expanding clinical indications for coronary revascularization, and in an effort to align the subject matter with the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, the new AUC for coronary artery revascularization were separated into 2 documents addressing ACS and stable ischemic heart disease individually. This document presents the AUC for ACS. Clinical scenarios were developed to mimic patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, presence of clinical instability or ongoing ischemic symptoms, prior reperfusion therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, fractional flow reserve testing, and coronary anatomy. This update provides a reassessment of clinical scenarios that the writing group felt to be affected by significant changes in the medical literature or gaps from prior criteria. The methodology used in this update is similar to the initial document but employs the recent modifications in the methods for developing AUC, most notably, alterations in the nomenclature for appropriate use categorization. A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range (4 to 6) indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario. Seventeen clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by the rating panel: 10 were identified as appropriate, 6 as may be appropriate, and 1 as rarely appropriate. As seen with the prior coronary revascularization AUC, revascularization in clinical scenarios with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were considered appropriate. Likewise, clinical scenarios with unstable angina and intermediate- or high-risk features were deemed appropriate. Additionally, the management of nonculprit artery disease and the timing of revascularization are now also rated. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of practice patterns that will hopefully improve physician decision making.