Racial disparities in thoracic aortic surgery: Myth or reality?

OBJECTIVE: We examined the relationship between Black or White race and adverse outcomes in patients who underwent surgery of the ascending aorta, aortic root, or aortic arch at our center. METHODS: We analyzed 2335 consecutive patients who identified as Black (n = 217, 9.3%) or White (n = 2118, 90.7%) and underwent proximal aortic surgery. Patient zip codes were used to determine community socioeconomic (CSE) characteristics. The composite adverse outcome comprised mortality, persistent neurologic injury, and renal failure necessitating dialysis at discharge. We performed multivariable analysis, Kaplan-Meier analysis, and propensity score matching adjusted for CSE factors. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 3.7 years. Compared with White patients, Black patients lived in areas characterized by a higher percentage living below poverty level, lower income, and lower education level (P < .0001). Black patients had higher rates of emergency presentation (P < .0001) and lower 5- and 10-year survival rates (P = .0002). Short-term outcomes were similar between groups, except for respiratory failure and length of stay (P < .0001), which were higher in the Black population. After propensity score matching adjusted for CSE factors, Black and White patients (n = 204 each) had similar short-term outcomes and 5- and 10-year survival rates (P = .30). Multivariable analysis stratified by race showed that CSE factors independently predicted adverse outcomes in Black but not White patients. CONCLUSIONS: This is among few studies that have analyzed the relationship between race and proximal aortic surgery. Although outcomes were similar between Black and White patients in our cohort after adjusting for CSE factors, unfavorable CSE factors predicted adverse outcomes in Black but not White patients. More patient-specific studies are needed.

The intersection of community socioeconomic factors with gender on outcomes after thoracic aortic surgery.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the relationship among community socioeconomic factors (poverty, income, and education), gender, and outcomes in patients who underwent ascending aortic, root, and arch surgery. METHODS: For 2634 consecutive patients, we associated patients' ZIP codes with community socioeconomic factors. The composite adverse outcome comprised death, persistent neurological injury, and renal failure necessitating dialysis at discharge. Multivariable analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used. Men and women from the full cohort and from the elective patients were propensity matched. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 3.6 years (interquartile range, 1.2-9.3). Men lived in areas characterized by less poverty (P = .03), higher household income (P = .01), and more education (P = .02) than women; likewise, in the elective cohort, all community socioeconomic factors favored men (P ≤ .009). Female gender predicted composite adverse outcome (P = .006). In the propensity-matched women and men (820 pairs), the composite adverse outcome rates were 14.2% and 11%, respectively (P = .06). In 583 propensity-matched pairs of elective patients, men had less composite adverse outcome (P = .02), operative mortality (P = .04), and renal (P = .02) and respiratory failure (P = .0006). The 5- and 10-year survivals for these men and women were 74.2% versus 71.4% and 50.2% versus 48.2%, respectively (P = .06). All community socioeconomic factors in both propensity-matched groups nonsignificantly favored men. CONCLUSIONS: This study is among the first to examine the association among community socioeconomic factors, gender, and outcomes in patients who undergo proximal aortic surgery. Female gender predicted a composite adverse outcome. In the elective patients, most adverse outcomes were significantly less in men. In the propensity-matched patients, all community socioeconomic factors favored men, although not significantly. Larger studies with patient-level socioeconomic information are needed.