Outcomes of 3-day discharge after elective cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Shorter length of stay (LOS) is a welcome consequence of optimized perioperative care. However, accelerated hospital discharge may have unintended consequences. Before implementing an institutional enhanced recovery after surgery protocol, we evaluated the safety of shorter LOS and compared outcomes of patients with shorter LOS (LOS ≤ 3 days) to those with longer LOS (LOS > 3 days). METHODS: We identified all patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass between July 2004 and June 2017. Transcatheter approaches, ventricular assist devices, transplants, and traumas were excluded. Patients were divided into two cohorts, one with shorter hospitalizations (LOS ≤ 3 days) and one with longer hospitalizations (LOS > 3 days). Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed and differences between the two groups were compared. RESULTS: A total of 5,987 patients (63.0 ± 13.8 years old, 34% female) were identified and 131 (2.2%) patients were LOS ≤ 3 days; median STS Risk score was 1.2 (0.6-2.4). PSM resulted in a total of 478 patients (357 LOS > 3 and 121 LOS ≤ 3 days); median STS Risk score was 0.4 (0.3-0.9). LOS ≤ 3 days had lower rates of postoperative atrial fibrillation (2% vs. 19%; p < .001) and major in-hospital complications (0% vs. 9%; p = .001); however, 30-day readmissions (8% LOS ≤ 3 vs. 6% LOS > 3 days; p = .66) and mortality rates (0% vs. 0%) were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSION: LOS ≤ 3 days was associated with less postoperative atrial fibrillation and fewer major in-hospital complications. LOS ≤ 3 days was not associated with rehospitalization or mortality. Shorter LOS after elective cardiac surgery appears to be a safe practice with favorable outcomes, especially in low operative risk patients.

Cardiac anatomy pertinent to the catheter and surgical treatment of atrial fibrillation.

In the 1980s when surgery was first introduced for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), one would often hear comments like "Every little old grandmother has AF. Why on earth would you operate on someone like that?".

Comparison of Monitored Anesthesia Care and General Anesthesia for Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

OBJECTIVE: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement is a safe, minimally invasive treatment for severe aortic stenosis in patients with moderate-to-high surgical risk. Monitored anesthesia is administered by an anesthesiologist. This study compares transcatheter aortic valve outcomes under monitored anesthesia vs general anesthesia. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected for 286 patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve replacement at a single academic hospital from March 2012 to August 2016. The patients were grouped by type of anesthesia: monitored vs general. A propensity score match was performed to compare intraoperative and post-operative outcomes between groups. RESULTS: General anesthesia was used in 102 patients and moderate sedation in 184. Propensity score matching produced 80 pairs. Compared to procedures under general anesthesia, patients receiving monitored anesthesia had shorter procedure (1.6 [1.4, 2.0] vs 2.0 [1.6, 2.5] hours;P < 0.001) and fluoroscopy times (17 [14.5, 22.5] vs 25 [17.9, 30.3] minutes;P < 0.001) and shorter hospital length-of-stay (3 [2.0, 4.0] vs 5 [3.0, 7.0] days;P < 0.001) but no difference in intensive care unit length-of-stay. Blood transfusion was more common in patients undergoing general anesthesia, but there was no difference in stroke, renal failure, postoperative atrial fibrillation, or need for permanent pacemaker. More patients were discharged to home after monitored anesthesia (90% vs 64%;P < 0.001). There was no difference in 30-day mortality (0% vs 3%;P = 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Transcatheter aortic valve replacement under monitored anesthesia provides the safety of anesthesia-led sedation without intubation and general anesthetic. We found no compromise in patient safety or clinical outcomes.

Is mitral valve disease treated differently in men and women?

PURPOSE: This study was performed to determine if there is a sex-based bias in referral practices, complexity of disease, surgical treatment, or outcomes in patients undergoing mitral valve surgery at our institution. METHODS: Data were collected from the Cardiovascular Research Database of the Clinical Trial Unit of the Bluhm Cardiovascular Institute at Northwestern Memorial Hospital and they were defined according to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database ( www.sts.org ). All patients who had mitral valve replacement, mitral valve repair with annuloplasty ring placement, and mitral valve annuloplasty alone were evaluated, including patients who underwent concomitant tricuspid valve surgery, atrial fibrillation ablation, patent foramen ovale closure, and coronary artery bypass grafting. An unmatched comparison was made between the 836 men and 600 women in the entire cohort (N = 1436) and propensity score-matching was performed in 423 pairs of men and women. Additional propensity score-matching for 219 pairs of men and women with Type II mitral valve functional class and no coronary artery disease and for 68 pairs of men and women with Type 1 or Type IIIb mitral valve functional class. Propensity score matching was used to compare sex differences involving a greedy algorithm with a caliper of size 0.1 logit propensity score standard deviation units. RESULTS: Between 1 April 2004 and 30 June 2017, 1436 patients (41.8% women, mean age 61.1 ± 12.6 years (men), 62.9 ± 13.3 years (women)) underwent mitral valve surgery. The unmatched comparison for the entire cohort showed that, on average, at the time of surgery, women had higher Society of Thoracic Surgery risk scores, were older and had more heart failure, coronary artery disease, and mitral stenosis than men. Women received proportionately fewer mitral repairs and more atrial fibrillation ablation, and tricuspid valve surgery. Women had longer intensive care unit and hospital stays, required more dialysis, and suffered more transient ischemic attacks and cardiac arrests postoperatively, and 30-day mortality rate was higher for women. However, propensity score-matching of 846 of the patients (423 men; 423 women) indicated that both the surgical approaches and surgical outcomes were comparable for men and women who had similar levels of disease and co-morbidities. Additional propensity score-matching of only those patients with degenerative mitral regurgitation (DMR) (219 men; 219 women) and those with Type 1 or Type III mitral valve disease showed no differences in the surgical procedures performed or in 30-day mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Women appear to be referred for mitral valve surgery later in the course of their disease, which could possibly be on the basis of sex bias, but they may also have a more aggressive form of mitral valve disease than men. Regardless of the reasons for the later referral of women for mitral valve surgery, the clinical outcomes are dependent upon the severity of the mitral disease and associated co-morbidities at the time of surgery, not on the basis of sex bias.

Evaluation of aortic stenosis severity using 4D flow jet shear layer detection for the measurement of valve effective orifice area.

AIMS: The objective of this study was to evaluate the potential of 4D flow MRI to assess valve effective orifice area (EOA) in patients with aortic stenosis as determined by the jet shear layer detection (JSLD) method. METHODS AND RESULTS: An in-vitro stenosis phantom was used for validation and in-vivo imaging was performed in 10 healthy controls and 40 patients with aortic stenosis. EOA was calculated by the JSLD method using standard 2D phase contrast MRI (PC-MRI) and 4D flow MRI measurements (EOAJSLD-2D and EOAJSLD-4D, respectively). As a reference standard, the continuity equation was used to calculate EOA (EOACE) with the 2D PC-MRI velocity field and compared to the EOAJSLD measurements. The in-vitro results exhibited excellent agreement between flow theory (EOA=0.78cm(2)) and experimental measurement (EOAJSLD-4D=0.78±0.01cm(2)) for peak velocities ranging from 0.9 to 3.7m/s. In-vivo results showed good correlation and agreement between EOAJSLD-2D and EOACE (r=0.91, p<0.001; bias: -0.01±0.38cm(2); agreement limits: 0.75 to -0.77cm(2)), and between EOAJSLD-4D and EOACE (r=0.95, p<0.001; bias: -0.09±0.26cm(2); limits: 0.43 to -0.62cm(2)). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility of measuring EOAJSLD using 4D flow MRI. The technique allows for optimization of the EOA measurement position by visualizing the 3D vena contracta, and avoids potential sources of EOACE measurement variability.