Catheterization for Congenital Heart Disease Adjustment for Risk Method II.

BACKGROUND: Current metrics used to adjust for case mix complexity in congenital cardiac catheterization are becoming outdated due to the introduction of novel procedures, innovative technologies, and expanding patient subgroups. This study aims to develop a risk adjustment methodology introducing a novel, clinically meaningful adverse event outcome and incorporating a modern understanding of risk. METHODS: Data from diagnostic only and interventional cases with defined case types were collected for patients ≤18 years of age and ≥2.5 kg at all Congenital Cardiac Catheterization Project on Outcomes participating centers. The derivation data set consisted of cases performed from 2014 to 2017, and the validation data set consisted of cases performed from 2019 to 2020. Severity level 3 adverse events were stratified into 3 tiers by clinical impact (3a/b/c); the study outcome was clinically meaningful adverse events, severity level ≥3b (3bc/4/5). RESULTS: The derivation data set contained 15 224 cases, and the validation data set included 9462 cases. Clinically meaningful adverse event rates were 4.5% and 4.2% in the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. The final risk adjustment model included age <30 days, Procedural Risk in Congenital Cardiac Catheterization risk category, and hemodynamic vulnerability score (C statistic, 0.70; Hosmer-Lemeshow P value, 0.83; Brier score, 0.042). CONCLUSIONS: CHARM II (Congenital Heart Disease Adjustment for Risk Method II) risk adjustment methodology allows for equitable comparison of clinically meaningful adverse events among institutions and operators with varying patient populations and case mix complexity performing pediatric cardiac catheterization.

Comparison of diagnosis-based risk adjustment methods for episode-based costs to apply in efficiency measurement.

BACKGROUND: The recent rising health spending intrigued efficiency and cost-based performance measures. However, mortality risk adjustment methods are still under consideration in cost estimation, though methods specific to cost estimate have been developed. Therefore, we aimed to compare the performance of diagnosis-based risk adjustment methods based on the episode-based cost to utilize in efficiency measurement. METHODS: We used the Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service-National Patient Sample as the data source. A separate linear regression model was constructed within each Major Diagnostic Category (MDC). Individual models included explanatory (demographics, insurance type, institutional type, Adjacent Diagnosis Related Group [ADRG], diagnosis-based risk adjustment methods) and response variables (episode-based costs). The following risk adjustment methods were used: Refined Diagnosis Related Group (RDRG), Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), National Health Insurance Service Hierarchical Condition Categories (NHIS-HCC), and Department of Health and Human Service-HCC (HHS-HCC). The model accuracy was compared using R-squared (R2), mean absolute error, and predictive ratio. For external validity, we used the 2017 dataset. RESULTS: The model including RDRG improved the mean adjusted R2 from 40.8% to 45.8% compared to the adjacent DRG. RDRG was inferior to both HCCs (RDRG adjusted R2 45.8%, NHIS-HCC adjusted R2 46.3%, HHS-HCC adjusted R2 45.9%) but superior to CCI (adjusted R2 42.7%). Model performance varied depending on the MDC groups. While both HCCs had the highest explanatory power in 12 MDCs, including MDC P (Newborns), RDRG showed the highest adjusted R2 in 6 MDCs, such as MDC O (pregnancy, childbirth, and puerperium). The overall mean absolute errors were the lowest in the model with RDRG ($1,099). The predictive ratios showed similar patterns among the models regardless of the  subgroups according to age, sex, insurance type, institutional type, and the upper and lower 10th percentiles of actual costs. External validity also showed a similar pattern in the model performance. CONCLUSIONS: Our research showed that either NHIS-HCC or HHS-HCC can be useful in adjusting comorbidities for episode-based costs in the process of efficiency measurement.

An Update to the Kaiser Permanente Inpatient Risk Adjustment Methodology Accurately Predicts In-Hospital Mortality: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Methods to accurately predict the risk of in-hospital mortality are important for applications including quality assessment of healthcare institutions and research. OBJECTIVE: To update and validate the Kaiser Permanente inpatient risk adjustment methodology (KP method) to predict in-hospital mortality, using open-source tools to measure comorbidity and diagnosis groups, and removing troponin which is difficult to standardize across modern clinical assays. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data from GEMINI. GEMINI is a research collaborative that collects administrative and clinical data from hospital information systems. PARTICIPANTS: Adult general medicine inpatients at 28 hospitals in Ontario, Canada, between April 2010 and December 2022. MAIN MEASURES: The outcome was in-hospital mortality, modeled by diagnosis group using 56 logistic regressions. We compared models with and without troponin as an input to the laboratory-based acute physiology score. We fit and validated the updated method using internal-external cross-validation at 28 hospitals from April 2015 to December 2022. KEY RESULTS: In 938,103 hospitalizations with 7.2% in-hospital mortality, the updated KP method accurately predicted the risk of mortality. The c-statistic at the median hospital was 0.866 (see Fig. 3) (25th-75th 0.848-0.876, range 0.816-0.927) and calibration was strong for nearly all patients at all hospitals. The 95th percentile absolute difference between predicted and observed probabilities was 0.038 at the median hospital (25th-75th 0.024-0.057, range 0.006-0.118). Model performance was very similar with and without troponin in a subset of 7 hospitals, and performance was similar with and without troponin for patients hospitalized for heart failure and acute myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: An update to the KP method accurately predicted in-hospital mortality for general medicine inpatients in 28 hospitals in Ontario, Canada. This updated method can be implemented in a wider range of settings using common open-source tools.

Improving diagnosis-based cost groups in the Dutch risk equalization model: the effects of a new clustering method and allowing for multimorbidity.

Health insurance markets with community-rated premiums typically use risk equalization (RE) to compensate insurers for predictable profits on people in good health and predictable losses on those with a chronic disease. Over the past decades RE models have evolved from simple demographic models to sophisticated health-based models. Despite the improvements, however, non-trivial predictable profits and losses remain. This study examines to what extent the Dutch RE model can be further improved by redesigning one key morbidity adjuster: the Diagnosis-based Cost Groups (DCGs). This redesign includes (1) revision of the underlying hospital diagnoses and treatments ('dxgroups'), (2) application of a new clustering procedure, and (3) allowing multi-qualification. We combine data on spending, risk characteristics and hospital claims for all individuals with basic health insurance in the Netherlands in 2017 (N = 17 m) with morbidity data from general practitioners (GPs) for a subsample (N = 1.3 m). We first simulate a baseline RE model (i.e., the RE model of 2020) and then modify three important features of the DCGs. In a second step, we evaluate the effect of the modifications in terms of predictable profits and losses for subgroups of consumers that are potentially vulnerable to risk selection. While less prominent results are found for subgroups derived from the GP data, our results demonstrate substantial reductions in predictable profits and losses at the level of dxgroups and for individuals with multiple dxgroups. An important takeaway from our paper is that smart design of morbidity adjusters in RE can help mitigate selection incentives.

NSQIP Quality Benchmarking and Evaluation of Potential Bias Associated with Higher- or Lower-Risk Operation Case Mix.

BACKGROUND: To ensure validity and acceptance of NSQIP risk-adjusted benchmarking, it is important that adjustments adequately control for hospitals that vary in their proportions of lower- or higher-risk operations (combined risk for procedure and patient). This issue was addressed in separate empirical and simulation studies. STUDY DESIGN: For the empirical study, potential miscalibration bias favoring hospitals that do lower-risk operations or disfavoring hospitals that do higher-risk operations was evaluated for 14 modeled outcomes using NSQIP data. A determination was also made as to whether there was a relationship between mean hospital operation risk and benchmarking results (log odds ratio). In the simulation study of the same 14 outcomes, hospital benchmarked performance was evaluated when sampled cases were reconstituted to include either a larger proportion of lower-risk operations or a larger proportion of higher-risk operations. RESULTS: Miscalibration favoring either lower- or higher-risk operations was absent, as were important associations between operative risk and hospital log odds ratios (most model R 2 less than 0.01). In the simulation, there were no substantial changes in log odds ratios when greater percentages of either lower- or higher-risk operations were included in a hospital's sample (nonsignificant p values and effect sizes less than 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: These results should enhance NSQIP participants' confidence in the adequacy of NSQIP patient and procedure risk-adjustment methods. NSQIP participants may rely on benchmarking findings, and implement quality improvement efforts based on them, without concern that they are biased by a preponderance of lower or higher risk operations.

Evaluation of risk adjustment performance of diagnosis-based and medication-based comorbidity indices in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed risk adjustment performance of six comorbidity indices in two categories of comorbidity measures: diagnosis-based comorbidity indices and medication-based ones in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study. Data used in this study were sourced from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Research Database. The study population comprised all patients who were hospitalized due to COPD for the first time in the target year of 2012. Each qualified patient was individually followed for one year starting from the index date to assess two outcomes of interest, medical expenditures within one year after discharge and in-hospital mortality of patients. To assess how well the added comorbidity measures would improve the fitted model, we calculated the log-likelihood ratio statistic G2. Subsequently, we compared risk adjustment performance of the comorbidity indices by using the Harrell c-statistic measure derived from multiple logistic regression models. RESULTS: Analytical results demonstrated that that comorbidity measures were significant predictors of medical expenditures and mortality of COPD patients. Specifically, in the category of diagnosis-based comorbidity indices the Elixhauser index was superior to other indices, while the RxRisk-V index was a stronger predictor in the framework of medication-based codes, for gauging both medical expenditures and in-hospital mortality by utilizing information from the index hospitalization only as well as the index and prior hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this work has ascertained that comorbidity indices are significant predictors of medical expenditures and mortality of COPD patients. Based on the study findings, we propose that when designing the payment schemes for patients with chronic diseases, the health authority should make adjustments in accordance with the burden of health care caused by comorbid conditions.

Is the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hierarchical Condition Category Risk Adjustment Model Satisfactory for Quantifying Risk After Spine Surgery?

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) hierarchical condition category (HCC) coding is a risk adjustment model that allows for the estimation of risk-and cost-associated with health care provision. Current models may not include key factors that fully delineate the risk associated with spine surgery. OBJECTIVE: To augment CMS HCC risk adjustment methodology with socioeconomic data to improve its predictive capabilities for spine surgery. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample was queried for spinal fusion, and the data was merged with county-level coverage and socioeconomic status variables obtained from the Brookings Institute. We predicted outcomes (death, nonroutine discharge, length of stay [LOS], total charges, and perioperative complication) with pairs of hierarchical, mixed effects logistic regression models-one using CMS HCC score alone and another augmenting CMS HCC scores with demographic and socioeconomic status variables. Models were compared using receiver operating characteristic curves. Variable importance was assessed in conjunction with Wald testing for model optimization. RESULTS: We analyzed 653 815 patients. Expanded models outperformed models using CMS HCC score alone for mortality, nonroutine discharge, LOS, total charges, and complications. For expanded models, variable importance analyses demonstrated that CMS HCC score was of chief importance for models of mortality, LOS, total charges, and complications. For the model of nonroutine discharge, age was the most important variable. For the model of total charges, unemployment rate was nearly as important as CMS HCC score. CONCLUSION: The addition of key demographic and socioeconomic characteristics substantially improves the CMS HCC risk-adjustment models when modeling spinal fusion outcomes. This finding may have important implications for payers, hospitals, and policymakers.

How to deal with persistently low/high spenders in health plan payment systems?

Health insurance markets with community-rated premiums typically include risk adjustment (RA) to mitigate selection problems. Over the past decades, RA systems have evolved from simple demographic models to sophisticated morbidity-based models. Even the most sophisticated models, however, tend to overcompensate people with persistently low spending and undercompensate those with persistently high spending. This paper compares three methods that exploit spending-level persistence for improving health plan payment systems: (1) implementation of spending-based risk adjustors, (2) implementation of high-risk pooling for people with multiple-year high spending, and (3) indirect use of spending persistence via constrained regression. Based on incentive measures for risk selection and cost control, we conclude that a combination of the last two options can substantially outperform the first, which is currently used in the health plan payment system in the Netherlands.

Should administrative costs in health insurance be included in the risk-equalization? An analysis of five countries.

Most countries that apply risk-equalization in their health insurance market(s) perform risk-equalization on medical claims but do not include other components of the insurance premium, such as administrative costs. Using fixed effects panel regressions from individual insurers in Australia, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the US, we find evidence that health insurers with a high morbidity population on average have higher administrative costs. We argue that administrative costs should also be included in risk-equalization and we show that such equalization results in additional equalization payments nontrivial in size. Using examples from Germany and the US, we show how in practice policymakers can include administrative costs in risk-equalization. We are skeptical about applying risk-equalization to other components of the insurance premium, such as profits or costs related to solvency requirements of insurers.

Manual Closed Reduction of Incarcerated Hernia: Is It Safe in the Emergency Department?

BACKGROUND: Emergency surgical repair is the standard approach to the management of an incarcerated abdominal wall hernia (IAWH). In cases of very high-risk patients, manual closed reduction (MCR) of IAWH may prevent the need for emergency surgery. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety, success rate, and complications of MCR in the management of IAWH conducted in an emergency department. METHODS: The data of all patients who underwent MCR between 2012 and 2018 were retrospectively collected. Patient demographics, presenting symptoms, clinical parameters, and management during the hospitalization were retrieved from the medical charts. RESULTS: Overall, 548 patients underwent MCR during the study period. The success rate was 25.4% (139 patients). One patient had a complication that required a laparotomy 2 days after his discharge. A recurrent incarceration occurred in 23%, 60% of them underwent successful repeated MCR and the others underwent emergency surgery. Six patients (1.4%) had a bowel perforation after a failed MCR. CONCLUSIONS: MCR can be performed safely in the emergency department and should be consider as an option to treat IAWH, especially in high operative risk patients.

Pharmacological Management of Apathy in Dementia.

Apathy is a highly prevalent symptom of dementia. Despite its association with faster cognitive and functional decline, decreased quality of life and increased mortality, no therapies are currently approved to treat apathy. The objective of this review was to summarize the drugs that have been studied for apathy treatment in patients with dementia (specifically Alzheimer's disease [AD], Huntington's disease [HD] and Parkinson's disease [PD] dementia; dementia with Lewy bodies [DLB]; vascular dementia [VaD]; and frontotemporal dementia [FTD]) based on their putative mechanisms of action. A search for relevant studies was performed using ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that were available in English and included at least one drug intervention and an apathy measure scale. A total of 52 studies that included patients with AD (n = 33 studies), PD (n = 5), HD (n = 1), DLB (n = 1), FTD (n = 3), VaD (n = 1), VaD and AD (n = 4), VaD and mixed dementia (n = 1), and AD, VaD and mixed dementia (n = 3) were eligible for inclusion. These studies showed that methylphenidate, olanzapine, cholinesterase inhibitors, choline alphoscerate, citalopram, memantine, and mibampator are the only beneficial drugs in AD-related apathy. For PD-related apathy, only methylphenidate, rotigotine and rivastigmine showed benefits. Regarding FTD- and DLB-related apathy, initial studies with agomelatine and rivastigmine showed benefits, respectively. As for HD- and only-VaD-related apathy, no drugs demonstrated benefits. With regards to mixed populations, memantine, galantamine and gingko biloba showed effects on apathy in the AD plus VaD populations and nimodipine in the VaD plus mixed dementia populations. Of the drugs with positive results, some are already prescribed to patients with dementia to target other symptoms, some have characteristics-such as medical contraindications (e.g., cardiovascular) and adverse effects (e.g., gastrointestinal disturbances)-that limit their clinical use and some require further study. Future studies should investigate apathy as a primary outcome, making use of appropriate sample sizes and study durations to ensure durability of results. There should also be a consensus on using scales with high test/retest and interrater reliabilities to limit the inconsistencies between clinical trials. In conclusion, there are currently no US FDA-approved drugs that target apathy in dementia, so there is an ongoing need for the development of such drugs.

Improved identification of severely injured pediatric trauma patients using reverse shock index multiplied by Glasgow Coma Scale.

BACKGROUND: The shock index pediatric age-adjusted (SIPA) predicts the need for increased resources and mortality among pediatric trauma patients without incorporating neurological status. A new scoring tool, rSIG, which is the reverse shock index (rSI) multiplied by the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), has been proven superior at predicting outcomes in adult trauma patients and mortality in pediatric patients compared with traditional scoring systems. We sought to compare the accuracy of rSIG to Shock Index (SI) and SIPA in predicting the need for early interventions in civilian pediatric trauma patients. METHODS: Patients (aged 1-18 years) in the 2014 to 2018 Pediatric Trauma Quality Improvement Program database with complete heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and total GCS were included. Optimal cut points of rSIG were calculated for predicting blood transfusion within 4 hours, intubation, intracranial pressure monitoring, and intensive care unit admission. From the optimal thresholds, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve were calculated from receiver operating characteristics analyses to predict each outcome and compared with SI and SIPA. RESULTS: A total of 604,931 patients with a mean age of 11.1 years old were included. A minority of patients had a penetrating injury mechanism (5.6%) and the mean Injury Severity Score was 7.6. The mean SI and rSIG scores were 0.85 and 18.6, respectively. Reverse shock index multiplied by Glasgow Coma Scale performed better than SI and SIPA at predicting early trauma outcomes for the overall population, regardless of age. CONCLUSION: Reverse shock index multiplied by Glasgow Coma Scale outperformed SI and SIPA in the early identification of traumatically injured children at risk for early interventions, such as blood transfusion within 4 hours, intubation, intracranial pressure monitoring, and intensive care unit admission. Reverse shock index multiplied by Glasgow Coma Scale adds neurological status in initial patient assessment and may be used as a bedside triage tool to rapidly identify pediatric patients who will likely require early intervention and higher levels of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level III.

Management of DOAC in Patients Undergoing Planned Surgery or Invasive Procedure: Italian Federation of Centers for the Diagnosis of Thrombotic Disorders and the Surveillance of the Antithrombotic Therapies (FCSA) Position Paper.

Patients on anticoagulant treatment are constantly increasing, with an estimated prevalence in Italy of 2% of the total population. About a quarter of the anticoagulated patients require temporary cessation of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or vitamin K antagonists for a planned intervention within 2 years from anticoagulation inception. Several clinical issues about DOAC interruption remain unanswered: many questions are tentatively addressed daily by thousands of physicians worldwide through an experience-based balancing of thrombotic and bleeding risks. Among possible valuable answers, the Italian Federation of Centers for the diagnosis of thrombotic disorders and the Surveillance of the Antithrombotic therapies (FCSA) proposes some experience-based suggestions and expert opinions. In particular, FCSA provides practical guidance on the following issues: (1) multiparametric assessment of thrombotic and bleeding risks based on patients' individual and surgical risk factor, (2) testing of prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and DOAC plasma levels before surgery or invasive procedure, (3) use of heparin, (4) restarting of full-dose DOAC after high risk bleeding surgery, (5) practical nonpharmacological suggestions to manage patients perioperatively. Finally, FCSA suggests creating a multidisciplinary "anticoagulation team" with the aim to define the optimal perioperative management of anticoagulation.

Emergency general surgery transfer to lower acuity facility: The role of right-sizing care in emergency general surgery regionalization.

BACKGROUND: Regionalization of emergency general surgery (EGS) has primarily focused on expediting care of high acuity patients through interfacility transfers. In contrast, triaging low-risk patients to a nondesignated trauma facility has not been evaluated. This study evaluates a 16-month experience of a five-surgeon team triaging EGS patients at a tertiary care, Level I trauma center (TC) to an affiliated community hospital 1.3 miles away. METHODS: All EGS patients who presented to the Level I TC emergency department from January 2020 to April 2021 were analyzed. Patients were screened by EGS surgeons covering both facilities for transfer appropriateness including hemodynamics, resource need, and comorbidities. Patients were retrospectively evaluated for disposition, diagnosis, comorbidities, length of stay, surgical intervention, and 30-day mortality and readmission. RESULTS: Of 987 patients reviewed, 31.5% were transferred to the affiliated community hospital, 16.1% were discharged home from the emergency department, and 52.4% were admitted to the Level I TC. Common diagnoses were biliary disease (16.8%), bowel obstruction (15.7%), and appendicitis (14.3%). Compared with Level I TC admissions, Charlson Comorbidity Index was lower (1.89 vs. 4.45, p < 0.001) and length of stay was shorter (2.23 days vs. 5.49 days, p < 0.001) for transfers. Transfers had a higher rate of surgery (67.5% vs. 50.1%, p < 0.001) and lower readmission and mortality (8.4% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.004; 0.6% vs. 5.0%, p < 0.001). Reasons not to transfer were emergency evaluation, comorbidity burden, operating room availability, and established care. No transfers required transfer back to higher care (under-triage). Bed days saved at the Level I TC were 693 (591 inpatients). Total operating room minutes saved were 24,008 (16,919, between 7:00 am and 5:00 pm). CONCLUSION: Transfer of appropriate patients maintains high quality care and outcomes, while improving operating room and bed capacity and resource utilization at a tertiary care, Level I TC. Emergency general surgery regionalization should consider triage of both high-risk and low-risk patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective comparative cohort study, Level II.

Timing is everything: Impact of combined long bone fracture and major arterial injury on outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Timing of extremity fracture fixation in patients with an associated major vascular injury remains controversial. Some favor temporary fracture fixation before definitive vascular repair to limit potential graft complications. Others advocate immediate revascularization to minimize ischemic time. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the timing of fracture fixation on outcomes in patients with concomitant long bone fracture and major arterial injury. METHODS: Patients with a combined long bone fracture and major arterial injury in the same extremity requiring operative repair over 11 years were identified and stratified by timing of fracture fixation. Vascular-related morbidity (rhabdomyolysis, acute kidney injury, graft failure, extremity amputation) and mortality were compared between patients who underwent fracture fixation prerevascularization (PRE) or postrevascularization (POST). RESULTS: One hundred four patients were identified: 19 PRE and 85 POST. Both groups were similar with respect to age, sex, Injury Severity Score, admission base excess, 24-hour packed red blood cells, and concomitant venous injury. The PRE group had fewer penetrating injuries (32% vs. 60%, p = 0.024) and a longer time to revascularization (9.5 vs. 5.8 hours, p = 0.0002). Although there was no difference in mortality (0% vs. 2%, p > 0.99), there were more vascular-related complications in the PRE group (58% vs. 32%, p = 0.03): specifically, rhabdomyolysis (42% vs. 19%, p = 0.029), graft failure (26% vs. 8%, p = 0.026), and extremity amputation (37% vs. 13%, p = 0.013). Multivariable logistic regression identified fracture fixation PRE as the only independent predictor of graft failure (odds ratio, 3.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-14.33; p = 0.03) and extremity amputation (odds ratio, 3.924; 95% confidence interval, 1.272-12.111; p = 0.017). CONCLUSION: Fracture fixation before revascularization contributes to increased vascular-related morbidity and was consistently identified as the only modifiable risk factor for both graft failure and extremity amputation in patients with a combined long bone fracture and major arterial injury. For these patients, delaying temporary or definitive fracture fixation until POST should be the preferred approach. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, Level IV.

Association between prehospital transfer distance and surgical mortality in emergency thoracic aortic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether there is an association between prehospital transfer distance and surgical mortality in emergency thoracic aortic surgery. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using a national clinical database in Japan was conducted. Patients who underwent emergency thoracic aortic surgery from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2016, were included. Patients with type B dissection were excluded. A multilevel logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the association between prehospital transfer distance and surgical mortality. In addition, an instrumental variable analysis was performed to address unmeasured confounding. RESULTS: A total of 12,004 patients underwent emergency thoracic aortic surgeries at 495 hospitals. Surgical mortality was 13.8%. The risk-adjusted mortality odds ratio for standardized distance (mean 12.8 km, standard deviation 15.2 km) was 0.94 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.01; P = .09). Instrumental variable analysis did not reveal a significant association between transfer distance and surgical mortality as well. CONCLUSIONS: No significant association was found between surgical mortality and prehospital transfer distance in emergency thoracic aortic surgery cases. Suspected cases of acute thoracic aortic syndrome may be transferred safely to distant high-volume hospitals.

Prevention and management of spinal cord ischemia following aortic surgery: A survey of contemporary practice.

OBJECTIVE: Spinal cord ischemia (SCI) is a devastating complication of thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm repair. We aim to characterize current practices pertaining to SCI prevention and treatment across Canada. METHODS: Two questionnaires were developed by the Canadian Thoracic Aortic Collaborative and the Canadian Cardiovascular Critical Care Society targeting aortic surgeons and intensivists. A list of experts in the management of patients at risk of SCI was developed, with representation from each of the Canadian centers that perform complex aortic surgery. RESULTS: The response rate was 91% for both intensivists (21/23), and from cardiac and vascular surgeons (39/43). Most surgeons agreed that staging is important during endovascular repair of extent II thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (60%) but not for open repair (34%). All of the surgeons felt prophylactic lumbar drains were effective in reducing SCI, whereas only 66.7% of intensivists felt that lumbar drains were effective (P < .001). There was consensus among surgeons over when to employ lumbar drains. A majority of surgeons preferred to keep the hemoglobin over 100 g/L if the patient demonstrated loss of lower-extremity function, whereas most intensivists felt a target of 80 g/L was adequate (P < .001). Management of perioperative antihypertensives, use of intraoperative adjuncts, and management of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in the presence of a lumbar drain, were highly variable. CONCLUSIONS: We observed some consensus but considerable variability in the approach to SCI prevention and management across Canada. Future studies focused on the areas of variability may lead to more consistent and improved care for this high-risk population.

Results of transcarotid compared with transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

OBJECTIVES: The femoral artery is the preferred vascular access to perform transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). However, the optimal alternative approach has not been elucidated in patients who are not candidates for a transfemoral (TF) access. The objective of this study was to compare the outcomes of TAVR performed by the transcarotid (TC) compared with the TF approach. METHODS: This was a single-center study that included 526 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR between 2015 and 2019. TC-TAVR was performed in 127 and TF-TAVR in 399 patients. Postprocedural and 30-day clinical events were evaluated according to main access (TC vs TF) using a multivariate logistic regression model. One-year survival and freedom from neurological events were also evaluated. RESULTS: The prevalence of diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery disease, and peripheral vascular disease was higher in the TC group. In-hospital mortality (3.2% vs 2.0%, adjusted odds ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-7.15; P = .39), and 30-day stroke (2.4% vs 3.3%; odds ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval, 0.21-3.41; P = .81), were similar between groups as were other outcomes: procedural success (98.4% vs 97.0%; P = .52), 30-day cumulative mortality (4.8% vs 2.8%; P = .26), major vascular complication (2.4% vs 4.5%; P = .25), and major/life-threatening bleeding (4.7% vs 6.0%; P = .41) (TC vs TF, respectively). No differences were found among groups regarding survival or neurological events at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The TC approach is a safe alternate-access strategy for TAVR, and is associated with similar outcomes compared with TF-TAVR, despite a higher disease burden in TC patients.