ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Despite guideline recommendation, cardiac rehabilitation (CR) after cardiac surgery remains underused, and the extent of interhospital variability is not well understood. This study evaluated determinants of interhospital variability in CR use and outcomes. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 166,809 Medicare beneficiaries undergoing cardiac surgery who were discharged alive between July 1, 2016, and December 31, 2018. CR participation was identified in outpatient facility claims within a year of discharge. Hospital-level CR rates were tabulated, and multilevel models evaluated the extent to which patient, organizational, and regional factors accounted for interhospital variability. Adjusted 1-year mortality and readmission rates were also calculated for each hospital quartile of CR use. RESULTS: Overall, 90,171 (54.1%) participated in at least 1 CR session within a year of discharge. Interhospital CR rates ranged from 0.0% to 96.8%. Hospital factors that predicted CR use included nonteaching status and lower-hospital volume. Before adjustment for patient, organizational, and regional factors, 19.3% of interhospital variability was attributable to the admitting hospital. After accounting for covariates, 12.3% of variation was attributable to the admitting hospital. Patient (0.5%), structural (2.8%), and regional (3.7%) factors accounted for the remaining explained variation. Hospitals in the lowest quartile of CR use had greater adjusted 1-year mortality rates (Q1 = 6.7%, Q4 = 5.2%, P < .001) and readmission rates (Q1 = 37.6%, Q4 = 33.9%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Identifying best practices among high CR use facilities and barriers to access in low CR use hospitals may reduce interhospital variability in CR use and advance national improvement efforts.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular outcomes are worse among individuals from areas with limited socioeconomic resources. This study evaluated the relationship between high socioeconomic deprivation and isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) outcomes. METHODS: We linked statewide Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database data to Medicare Fee-for-Service records for 10 423 Michigan residents undergoing isolated CABG between January 2012 and December 2018. High socioeconomic deprivation was defined as residing in the highest decile of the ZIP Code-level area deprivation index (ADI). Multivariable logistic regression estimated the relationship between top ADI decile and major morbidity, in-hospital mortality, and operative mortality. Survival analyses evaluated long-term survival comparing patients in the top vs not in the top ADI decile. RESULTS: A total of 1036 patients were in the top decile of ADI (ADI >82.4), and they were more likely to be female, Black, and have a higher predicted risk of mortality. Patients in the top ADI decile had significantly higher rates of major morbidity (17.4% vs 11.4%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.54; P = .021) and in-hospital mortality (3.2% vs 1.3%, adjusted odds ratio, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.18-2.86, P = .007) but not operative mortality. The adjusted hazard of mortality was 16% higher for patients residing in the top ADI decile (95% CI, 1.01-1.33; P = .032). CONCLUSIONS: Isolated CABG patients residing in the highest areas of socioeconomic deprivation differed with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics and experienced worse short- and long-term outcomes compared with those not in the top ADI decile.
Subject(s)
Coronary Artery Bypass , Medicare , Adult , Aged , Coronary Artery Bypass/adverse effects , Female , Humans , Male , Michigan/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Socioeconomic Factors , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Aortic stenosis is a prevalent valvular heart disease that is treated primarily by surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), which are common treatments for addressing symptoms secondary to valvular heart disease. This narrative review article focuses on the existing literature comparing recovery and cost-effectiveness for SAVR and TAVR. METHODS: Major databases were searched for relevant literature discussing HRQOL and cost-effectiveness of TAVR and SAVR. We also searched for studies analyzing the use of wearable devices to monitor post-discharge recovery patterns. RESULTS: The literature focusing on quality-of-life following TAVR and SAVR has been limited primarily to single-center observational studies and randomized controlled trials. Studies focused on TAVR report consistent and rapid improvement relative to baseline status. Common HRQOL instruments (SF-36, EQ-5D, KCCQ, MLHFQ) have been used to document that TF-TAVR is advantageous over SAVR at 1-month follow-up, with the benefits leveling off following 1 year. TF-TAVR is economically favorable relative to SAVR, with estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values ranging from $50,000 to $63,000/QALY gained. TA-TAVR has not been reported to be advantageous from an HRQOL or cost-effectiveness perspective. CONCLUSIONS: While real-world experiences are less described, large-scale trials have advanced our understanding of recovery and cost-effectiveness of aortic valve replacement treatment strategies. Future work should focus on scalable wearable device technology, such as smartwatches and heart-rate monitors, to facilitate real-world evaluation of TAVR and SAVR to support clinical decision-making and outcomes ascertainment.
