Search

Goal: For decades, hospitals performing cardiac surgery have carried the cost of implementing quality improvement activities and reporting quality outcomes. However, the financial return of such investments is unclear, which weakens the incentive for hospitals to invest in quality improvement activities. This study explored the relationship between a hospital's measured quality and its financial performance. Methods: Using data from the American Hospital Association and Hospital Compare from 2014 to 2018, we performed an observational study of hospitals performing cardiac surgery. We used mixed-effects regression models with fixed-year effects and random intercepts to explore associations between measured quality and hospital financial performance. Our dependent variables were margins (profit divided by revenue) and financial distress; our independent variables included Patient Safety Indicator 90 (PSI-90) and hospital characteristics. Principal Findings: Our sample included 4,927 hospital-years from 1,209 unique hospitals. Hospitals in the worst-performing PSI-90 score quartile experienced a lower operating margin (−1.26%, 95% CI [−2.10 to −0.41], p =.004), a lower total margin (−0.92%, 95% CI [−1.66 to −0.17], p =.016), and an increased odds of financial distress in the next year (OR: 2.12, 95% CI [1.36–3.30], p =.001) when compared with the best-performing hospitals. Practical Applications: Our exploration into financial distress provides managers with a better understanding of the relationship between a hospital's measured quality and its financial position. In reflecting on our findings, hospital leaders may consider viewing patient safety as a modifiable factor that can improve their organization's overall financial health. Our findings suggest that excellent safety performance may be both financially and clinically beneficial to hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Aneurysmal dilatation of the aortic arch is uncommon, and the complex anatomy involved imposes unique technical challenges. The results of surgical intervention reported from large centers are improving; however, the degree to which these results are reproducible by other surgeons is less clear. We therefore reviewed our recent experience with total aortic arch replacement. Methods: Between July 1, 1997 and July 1, 2001 19 patients underwent complete aortic arch replacement, with or without concomitant procedures. We retrospectively reviewed perioperative results retrieved from the computerized database and clinical records. Results: The mean age of the study population was 68 ± 8.3 years (range 52 to 82), with women predominating (11 women, 8 men). All patients had hypertension. Patient history indicated active or past tobacco abuse in 16 patients (80%); cerebrovascular disease in 3, and peripheral vascular disease in 7 patients. Associated procedures included an elephant trunk in 12 (63%), replacement of the upper descending thoracic aorta in 5 (26%), concomitant coronary artery bypass in 5 (26%), and aortic root replacement in 3 (16%). One patient underwent replacement of the entire aorta from sinotubular ridge to iliac bifurcation in a single procedure. Brachiocephalic reconstruction with a "Y-graft" permitting early antegrade cerebral perfursion was performed in 12 patients. Retrograde cerebral perfusion was performed in ten patients (53%). Perioperatively, death occurred in two patients (11%) and stroke in two (11%). Conclusions: With cautious application, techniques developed in high-volume centers can also achieve satisfactory results when used at centers with a more modest case volume. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous meta‐analyses combining randomized and observational evidence in cardiac surgery have shown positive impact of enhanced recovery protocols after surgery (ERAS) on postoperative outcomes. However, definitive data based on randomized studies are missing, and the entirety of the ERAS measures and pathway, as recently systematized in guidelines and consensus statements, have not been captured in the published studies. The available literature actually focuses on "ERAS‐like" protocols or only limited number of ERAS measures. This study aims at analyzing all randomized studies applying ERAS‐like protocols in cardiac surgery for perioperative outcomes. Methods: A meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ERAS‐like with standard protocols of perioperative care was performed (PROSPERO registration CRD42021283765). PRISMA guidelines were used for abstracting and assessing data. Results: Thirteen single center RCTs (N = 1704, 850 in ERAS‐like protocol and 854 in the standard care group) were selected. The most common procedures were surgical revascularization (66.3%) and valvular surgery (24.9%). No difference was found in the incidence of inhospital mortality between the ERAS and standard treatment group (risk ratio [RR] 0.61 [0.31; 1.20], p = 0.15). ERAS was associated with reduced intensive care unit (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.57, p < 0.01) and hospital stay (SMD −0.23, p < 0.01) and reduced rates of overall complications when compared to the standard protocol (RR 0.60, p < 0.01) driven by the reduction in stroke (RR 0.29 [0.13; 0.62], p < 0.01). A significant heterogeneity in terms of the elements of the ERAS protocol included in the studies was observed. Conclusions: ERAS‐like protocols have no impact on short‐term survival after cardiac surgery but allows for a faster hospital discharge while potentially reducing surgical complications. However, this study highlights a significant nonadherence and heterogeneity to the entirety of ERAS protocols warranting further RCTs in this field including a greater number of elements of the framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Intraoperative team turnover is necessary given the duration of many cardiac surgical procedures, despite being an established risk factor for harm. We sought to determine if there was an association between intraoperative anesthesia handoff (AH) and patient morbidity and/or mortality after cardiac surgery. Methods. All adult cardiac surgery procedures from November 2016 through November 2021 were retrospectively interrogated for AH. These results were merged with postoperative patient outcomes data and analyzed for morbidity and mortality. Results. A single AH occurred in 1,087/5,937 (18.3%) procedures, and two or more AHs occurred in 224 (3.8%) procedures. Baseline characteristics show that AH is more frequently associated with higher complexity patients and operations. The primary outcome of operative mortality occurred in 113 (2.4%), 54 (5.0%), and 7 (3.1%) patients in the no AH, single AH, and multiple AH cohorts. After multivariable adjustment, the odds ratio for mortality was 1.15 (95% CI 0.79–1.67 and P = 0.46) for a single AH and 0.83 (95% CI 0.36–1.90 and P = 0.66) for multiple AH. There were no significant differences in readmission, length of stay, or a composite complication outcome between the cohorts after adjustment. Conclusions. In a large single-center experience, intraoperative anesthesia handoffs were not associated with adverse outcomes after cardiac surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This executive summary of the valvular heart disease guideline provides recommendations for clinicians to diagnose and manage valvular heart disease as well as supporting documentation to encourage their use.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 1, 2010, to March 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Reports, and other selected database relevant to this guideline. Structure: Many recommendations from the earlier valvular heart disease guidelines have been updated with new evidence and provides newer options for diagnosis and treatment of valvular heart disease. This summary includes only the recommendations from the full guideline which focus on diagnostic work-up, the timing and choice of surgical and catheter interventions, and recommendations for medical therapy. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in developing these guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Duration of Secondary Prophylaxis for Rheumatic Fever Type Duration After Last Attack* Rheumatic fever with carditis and residual heart disease (persistent VHD†) 10 y or until patient is 40 y of age (whichever is longer) Rheumatic fever with carditis but no residual heart disease (no valvular disease†) 10 y or until patient is 21 y of age (whichever is longer) Rheumatic fever without carditis 5 y or until patient is 21 y of age (whichever is longer) *Lifelong prophylaxis may be recommended if the patient is at high risk of group A streptococcus exposure. Systemic Fibrinolysis Versus Surgery for Prosthetic Valve Thrombosis Favor Surgery Favor Fibrinolysis Readily available surgical expertise No surgical expertise available Low surgical risk High surgical risk Contraindication to fibrinolysis No contraindication to fibrinolysis Recurrent valve thrombosis First-time episode of valve thrombosis NYHA class IV NYHA class I, II, or III Large clot (>0.8 cm 2) Small clot (<=0.8 cm 2) LA thrombus No LA thrombus Concomitant CAD in need of revascularization No or mild CAD Other valve disease No other valve disease Possible pannus Thrombus visualized Patient choice Patient choice CAD indicates coronary artery disease; The threshold for valve operation for valve regurgitation is higher in the asymptomatic patient who might ever become pregnant than in patients who will not become pregnant because there always is the possibility that valve repair will not be successful and a prosthetic valve will be needed. Consultation with or referral to a Primary or Comprehensive Heart Valve Center is reasonable when treatment options are being discussed for 1) asymptomatic patients with severe VHD, 2) patients who may benefit from valve repair versus valve replacement, or 3) patients with multiple comorbidities for whom valve intervention is considered. [Extracted from the article]

Aim: This executive summary of the valvular heart disease guideline provides recommendations for clinicians to diagnose and manage valvular heart disease as well as supporting documentation to encourage their use.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from January 1, 2010, to March 1, 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Reports, and other selected database relevant to this guideline.Structure: Many recommendations from the earlier valvular heart disease guidelines have been updated with new evidence and provides newer options for diagnosis and treatment of valvular heart disease. This summary includes only the recommendations from the full guideline which focus on diagnostic work-up, the timing and choice of surgical and catheter interventions, and recommendations for medical therapy. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in developing these guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The purpose of this research is to analyze factors associated with delays to surgical management of Type A acute aortic dissection patients.Methods: Time from diagnosis to surgery and associated factors were evaluated in 1880 surgically managed Type A dissection patients enrolled in the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection.Results: The majority of patients were transferred (75.7% vs 24.3%). Patients who were transferred had a median delay from diagnosis to surgery of 4.0 hours (interquartile range 2.5-7.2 hours), compared with 2.3 hours (interquartile range 1.1-4.2 hours; P < .001) in nontransferred patients. Among patients who were transferred, those with worst-ever, posterior, or tearing chest pain those with severe complications, and those receiving transthoracic echocardiogram prior to a transesophageal echocardiogram or as the only echocardiogram were treated more quickly. Those undergoing magnetic resonance imaging, or who had prior cardiac surgery, had longer delays to surgery. Among nontransferred patients, those with coma were treated more quickly. In both groups, patients presenting with emergent conditions such as cardiac tamponade, hypotension, or shock had more rapid treatment. Among transferred patients, surviving patients had longer delays (4.1 [2.6-7.8] hours vs 3.3 [2.0-6.0] hours, P = .001). Overall mortality did not differ between patients who were transferred vs not (19.3% vs 21.1%, P = .416).Conclusion: Simply being transferred added significantly to the delay to surgery for Type A acute aortic dissection patients, but a number of factors affected its extent. Overall, signs and symptoms leading to a definitive diagnosis or indicating immediate life threat reduced time to surgery, while factors suggesting other diagnoses correlated with delays. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents an update of the "2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Valvular Heart Disease" report of the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. It discusses basic principles of medical therapy for infective endocarditis, aortic stenosis and mitral regurgitation, among other valvular heart diseases. It also explains the term "guideline-directed management and therapy."

Background: Recent studies have demonstrated that many patients with acute type A aortic dissection (AD) have aortic diameters of <55 mm at presentation, prompting discussion of lowering the prophylactic surgical guidelines. However, risk of dissection at these smaller diameters is poorly defined.Objectives: The purpose of this study is to understand the risk of AD in moderately dilated ascending aortas using a large echocardiographic data set.Methods: Using an institutional echocardiography database, we identified 4,654 nonsyndromic adults (age: 68.6 ± 13.1 years; 1,003 women) with maximal ascending aortic diameters of 40 to 55 mm. We performed competing risk analysis to determine the independent risk factors of AD or aortic rupture.Results: Five hundred eighty-six individuals (12.6%) had bicuspid aortic valves (BAVs). During follow-up (14,431.5 patient-years), AD and rupture occurred in 13 and 1 patients, respectively, which demonstrated a linearized incidence of AD and/or rupture of 0.1% per patient-year. Elective ascending aortic repair was performed in 176 individuals. On multivariable analyses, independent predictors of AD and/or rupture were age (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01 to 1.12; p= 0.024) and baseline aortic diameters (HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.05 to 1.36; p = 0.006). The presence of a BAV was not a significant factor (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.10 to 8.40; p = 0.95). Estimated risks of AD and/or rupture within 5 years were 0.4%, 1.1%, and 2.9% at baseline aortic diameters of 45, 50, and 55 mm, respectively.Conclusions: Risks of AD and/or rupture were significantly correlated with the aortic diameter and age in patients with moderately dilated ascending aortas. However, the risks were low for diameters <5.0 cm when timely elective aortic repair was performed, regardless of the morphology of the aortic valve. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Background Markers of operation room (OR) efficiency in cardiac surgery are focused on 'knife to skin' and 'start time tardiness.' These do not evaluate the middle and later parts of the cardiac surgical pathway. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate knife to skin time as an efficiency marker in cardiac surgery. Methods We looked at knife to skin time, procedure time, and transfer times in the cardiac operational pathway for their correlation with predefined indices of operational efficiency (Index of Operation Efficiency - InOE, Surgical Index of Operational Efficiency - sInOE). A regression analysis was performed to test the goodness of fit of the regression curves estimated for InOE relative to the times on the operational pathway. Results The mean knife to skin time was 90.6 ± 13 minutes (23% of total OR time). The mean procedure time was 282 ± 123 minutes (71% of total OR time). Utilization efficiencies were highest for aortic valve replacement and coronary artery bypass grafting and least for complex aortic procedures. There were no significant procedure-specific or team-specific differences for standard procedures. Procedure times correlated the strongest with InOE (r = −0.98, p < 0.01). Compared to procedure times, knife to skin is not as strong an indicator of efficiency. A statistically significant linear dependence on InOE was observed with 'procedure times' only. Conclusions Procedure times are a better marker of OR efficiency than knife to skin in cardiac cases. Strategies to increase OR utilization and efficiency should address procedure times in addition to knife to skin times. doi: 10.1111/jocs.12528 (J Card Surg 2015;30:477-487) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Over the past 50 years, significant improvements in cardiac surgical care have been achieved. Nevertheless, surgical errors that significantly impact patient safety continue to occur. In order to further improve surgical outcomes, patient safety programs must focus on rectifying work system factors in the operating room (OR) that negatively impact the delivery of reliable surgical care. The goal of this paper is to provide an integrative review of specific work system factors in the OR that may directly impact surgical care processes, as well as the subsequent recommendations that have been put forth to improve surgical outcomes and patient safety. The important role that surgeons can play in facilitating work system changes in the OR is also discussed. The paper concludes with a discussion of the challenges involved in assessing the impact that interventions have on improving surgical care. Opportunities for future research are also highlighted throughout the paper. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: We sought to determine if the gene responsible for bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) in an extended family corresponds to previously reported loci for inherited forms of the disorder. Background: Loci at 15q25.1-26 and 9q34 have been reported to be associated with cardiovascular abnormalities involving BAV. Methods: Linkage analysis was performed on DNA collected from a large multigenerational family in which BAV disease segregates in an autosomal dominant manner, using microsatellite markers from the regions previously reported to segregate with the phenotype. Results: Lod scores were determined for genetic markers near the NOTCH1 gene and for a locus on chromosome 15q25.1-26 previously reported as being linked to BAV. The lod scores were negative or less than 1.0 for all markers tested. Conclusions: There is no evidence of linkage of BAV in our pedigree to either the NOTCH1 gene or to the chromosome 15 locus. The disorder in this family appears to be caused by a gene at a novel locus. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]