A comparison of reintervention rates after endovascular aneurysm repair between the Vascular Quality Initiative registry, Medicare claims, and chart review.

OBJECTIVE: The accurate measurement of reintervention after endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) is critical during postoperative surveillance. The purpose of this study was to compare reintervention rates after EVAR from three different data sources: the Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) alone, VQI linked to Medicare claims (VQI-Medicare), and a "gold standard" of clinical chart review supplemented with telephone interviews. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 729 patients who underwent EVAR at our institution between 2003 and 2013. We excluded patients without follow-up reported to the VQI (n = 68 [9%]) or without Medicare claims information (n = 114 [16%]). All patients in the final analytic cohort (n = 547) had follow-up information available from all three data sources (VQI alone, VQI linked to Medicare, and chart review). We then compared reintervention rates between the three data sources. Our primary end points were the agreement between the three data sources and the Kaplan-Meier estimated rate of reintervention at 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after EVAR. For gold standard assessment, we supplemented chart review with telephone interview as necessary to assess reintervention. RESULTS: VQI data alone identified 12 reintervention events in the first year after EVAR. Chart review confirmed all 12 events and identified 18 additional events not captured by the VQI. VQI-Medicare data successfully identified all 30 of these events within the first year. VQI-Medicare also documented four reinterventions in this time period that did not occur on the basis of patient interview (4/547 [0.7%]). The agreement between chart review and VQI-Medicare data at 1 year was excellent (κ = 0.93). At 3 years, there were 81 (18%) reinterventions detected by VQI-Medicare and 70 (16%) detected by chart review for a sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 96%, and κ of 0.80. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated similar reintervention rates after 3 years between VQI-Medicare and chart review (log-rank, P = .59). CONCLUSIONS: Chart review after EVAR demonstrated a 6% 1-year and 16% 3-year reintervention rate, and almost all (92%) of these events were accurately captured using VQI-Medicare data. Linking VQI data with Medicare claims allows an accurate assessment of reintervention rates after EVAR without labor-intensive physician chart review.

Optimal Surgical Approach to Left Atrioesophageal Fistula After Catheter Radiofrequency Ablation.

Atrioesophageal fistula formation is a rare but formidable complication after catheter radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation. We present 4 patients who underwent urgent primary intracardiac repair of the left atrium via sternotomy with central cardiopulmonary bypass and early aortic cross-clamp, followed by repair of the esophagus. We believe that this approach represents the safest strategy for addressing this morbid and often fatal complication.

Robotic and endoscopic mitral valve repair for degenerative disease.

Background: Minimally invasive mitral valve repair has been proven to be a safe alternative to open sternotomy and may be accomplished through classic endoscopic and robotic endoscopic approaches. Outcomes across different minimally invasive techniques have been insufficiently described. We compare early and late clinical outcomes across matched patients undergoing robotic endoscopic and classic endoscopic repair. Methods: From 2011 to 2020, 786 patients underwent minimally invasive mitral surgery, from which we were able to generate 124 matched patients (62 patients in each cohort). Clinical results were then compared between the two matched populations. Survival analysis was used to compare freedom from mortality to 10 years among matched classic endoscopic and robotic endoscopic mitral valve repair cohorts and to calculate freedom from moderate or severe mitral insufficiency at latest follow-up. Histograms of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and aortic cross-clamp times were constructed, and mean bypass and cross-clamp times were compared between classic endoscopic and robotic endoscopic cohorts. Results: There was no difference in early or late mortality at 10 years in either cohort. Freedom from moderate or severe mitral regurgitation or mitral valve replacement at last echocardiogram was 86.4% vs. 73.5% at 10 years, P=0.97. Patients undergoing robotic endoscopic mitral repair had a significantly longer CPB run when compared to the classic endoscopic cohort, with 148 min of CPB in the robotic endoscopic cohort compared to 133 min in the classic endoscopic group, P=0.03. Overall post-operative length of stay was not statistically significant between the robotic endoscopic and classic endoscopic groups, 6.3±0.5 and 6.0±0.3 days, respectively. No patients in either cohort developed renal failure or wound infection. The classic endoscopic group had a slightly higher risk of prolonged ventilation when compared to the robotic endoscopic group, with three classic endoscopic patients remaining intubated >8 hours post-operatively, compared to a single patient in the robotic endoscopic group. There were no unplanned reoperations in either group. Rates of postoperative stroke were comparable between groups (three in the classic endoscopic cohort, and two in the robotic endoscopic cohort). Conclusions: Index mitral valve surgery via a classic endoscopic approach yields similar clinical outcomes when compared to robotic endoscopic surgery. We demonstrate that both classic endoscopic and robotic endoscopic approaches allow repair of degenerative mitral valves with excellent short- and medium-term outcomes in a tertiary referral center.