Out-of-Hospital 30-day Deaths After Cardiac Surgery Are Often Underreported.

BACKGROUND: Operative mortality (in-hospital during the index admission or within 30 days of the procedure after discharge) is commonly used as a quality of care measure for public reporting of cardiac surgery outcomes, but the ability to capture out-of-hospital deaths accurately remains undetermined. The objective of the study was to estimate the impact of incomplete reporting of out-of-hospital deaths on hospital risk-adjusted mortality and outlier status. METHODS: New York State's 2014 to 2016 cardiac registry data were used to compare the capture of 30-day postprocedure deaths after discharge with and without the use of national and state-level vital statistics data for all 54,442 patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass graft, cardiac valve surgery, or both. Hospital risk-adjusted operative mortality rates and mortality outliers were compared based on statistical models that were developed with and without the use of vital statistics data. RESULTS: Thirty-day deaths postprocedure after discharge ranged from 10% to 39% of all operative deaths among cardiac surgical procedures. More than 30% of these deaths were missing without vital statistics confirmation for 7 of the 10 cardiac procedures examined, and more than 40% were missing for 5 of the procedures examined. When vital statistics data were used to confirm 30-day postprocedure deaths after discharge, an additional high outlier for valve surgery was identified. CONCLUSIONS: Operative mortality after cardiac surgery is often underreported owing to a considerable percentage of out-of-hospital cardiac surgery deaths that are missed by reporting centers. This can adversely affect the assessment of hospital risk-adjusted mortality in public reports.

Multiple Versus Single Arterial Coronary Bypass Graft Surgery for Multivessel Disease.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent guideline statements, there is still wide practice variation in the use of multiple arterial grafts (MAGs) versus single arterial grafts (SAGs) for patients with multivessel disease undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. This may be related to differences in findings between observational and randomized controlled studies. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare intermediate-term MAG and SAG outcomes with enhanced matching to reduce selection bias. METHODS: New York's cardiac registry identified 63,402 multivessel disease patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2014, to compare outcomes (median follow-up 6.5 years) for patients receiving SAGs and MAGs. SAG and MAG patients were propensity matched using 38 baseline characteristics to reduce selection bias. The primary endpoint was mortality, and secondary endpoints included repeat revascularization and a composite endpoint of mortality, acute myocardial infarction, and stroke. RESULTS: Before matching, 20% of procedures employed MAG. At 1 year, there was no mortality difference between matched MAG and SAG patients (2.4% vs. 2.2%, adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93 to 1.32). At 7 years, MAG patients had lower mortality (12.7% vs. 14.3%, AHR: 0.86; 95% CI: 0.79 to 0.93), a lower composite outcome (20.2% vs. 22.8%, AHR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.83 to 0.93), and a lower repeat revascularization rate (11.7% vs. 14.6%, AHR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.87). At 7 years, the subgroups for which MAG did not have a lower mortality rate included patients with off-pump surgery, 2-vessel disease with right coronary artery disease, recent acute myocardial infarction, renal dysfunction, and patient ≥70 years of age. CONCLUSIONS: Mortality and the composite outcome were similar between MAG and SAG patients at 1 year, but lower for MAG after 7 years. Patients of higher volume MAG surgeons experienced lower MAG mortality.

Mitral valve repair versus replacement for patients with preserved left ventricular function without heart failure symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study are to compare outcomes of mitral valve repair (MV-repair) and mitral valve replacement for patients with severe mitral regurgitation with preserved ventricular function and no congestive heart failure (CHF) symptoms and to examine variations in surgeon choice of procedure and outcomes by surgeon volume. METHODS: In total, 2259 consecutive patients in 42 New York State hospitals with the characteristics mentioned previously who underwent mitral valve repair (1801, 79.7%) or replacement between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2014, were identified from a mandatory statewide clinical registry. Propensity-matching was used to compare mortality and competing risk analyses were used to compare nonfatal outcomes. Median follow-up was 4.0 years. The use of mitral repair and risk-adjusted mortality for surgery were also examined as a function of individual surgeon mitral case volume. RESULTS: Propensity-matched patients who underwent MV-repair experienced a significantly lower mortality rate at 4 years (3.5% vs 12.1%, P < .001). Greater-volume surgeons were more likely to perform MV-repairs (92% vs 84%, 74%, and 69% in lower volume quartiles, respectively). No significant differences in mortality were observed among volume quartiles. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chronic severe primary mitral valve regurgitation with preserved ventricular function and no CHF symptoms who underwent MV-repair experienced lower mortality and no different reoperation, CHF, or stroke readmission rates than patients who underwent replacement. Greater-volume surgeons were more likely than their lower volume counterparts to choose mitral repair. Repair should be considered as the surgical option for these patients whenever possible.

Utilization and 1-Year Mortality for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in New York Patients With Aortic Stenosis: 2011 to 2012.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate changes in the use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) relative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and to examine relative 1-year TAVR and SAVR outcomes in 2011 to 2012 in a population-based setting. BACKGROUND: TAVR has become a popular option for patients with severe aortic stenosis, particularly for higher-risk patients. METHODS: New York's Cardiac Surgery Reporting System was used to identify TAVR and SAVR volumes and to propensity match TAVR and SAVR patients using numerous patient risk factors contained in the registry to compare 1-year mortality rates. Mortality rates were also compared for different levels of patient risk. RESULTS: The total number of aortic valve replacement patients increased from 2,291 in 2011 to 2,899 in 2012, an increase of 27%. The volume of SAVR patients increased by 7.1% from 1,994 to 2,135 and the volume of TAVR patients increased 157% from 297 to 764. The percentage of SAVR patients that were at higher risk (≥3% New York State [NYS] score, equivalent to a Society of Thoracic Surgeons score of about 8%) decreased from 27% to 23%, and the percentage of TAVR patients that were at higher risk decreased from 83% to 76%. There was no significant difference in 1-year mortality between TAVR and SAVR patients (15.6% vs. 13.1%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.30 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89 to 1.92]). There were no differences among patients with NYS score <3% (12.5% vs. 10.2%; HR: 1.42 [95% CI: 0.68 to 2.97]) or among patients with NYS score ≥3% (17.1% vs. 14.5%; HR: 1.27 [95% CI: 0.81 to 1.98]). CONCLUSIONS: TAVR has assumed a much larger share of all aortic valve replacements for severe aortic stenosis, and the average level of pre-procedural risk has decreased substantially. There are no differences between 1-year mortality rates for TAVR and SAVR patients.

Thirty-Day Readmissions After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis in New York State.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have compared short-term and medium-term mortality rates for patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR), but no studies have compared short-term readmission rates for the 2 procedures. METHODS AND RESULTS: New York's Cardiac Surgery Reporting System was used to propensity match 617 TAVI and 1981 SAVR patients using numerous patient risk factors contained in the registry. The 389 propensity-matched pairs were then used to analyze differences in readmission rates between the 2 groups. TAVI and SAVR readmission rates were also compared for patients with a history of congestive heart failure and for patients aged ≥80. Also, reasons for readmission for TAVI and SAVR patients were examined and compared. Readmission rates were not statistically different for all propensity-matched TAVI and SAVR patients (respective rates, 18.8% and 19.3%; P=0.86). After further adjustment using a logistic regression model, there was still no significant difference (adjusted odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [0.68-1.39]). For patients aged ≥80, the 30-day readmission rates were 19.9% and 22.0% (P=0.59), and when further adjusted using the logistic regression model, adjusted odds ratio=0.89 (0.55-1.45). For patients with a history of congestive heart failure, the respective rates were 22.8% and 20.4% (P=0.56), and with further adjustment, adjusted odds ratio became 1.15 (0.72-1.82). CONCLUSIONS: There are no statistically significant differences between TAVI and SAVR patients in short-term readmission rates.