Eugene A Grossi1, Scott Goldman2, J Alan Wolfe3, John Mehall4, J Michael Smith5, Gorav Ailawadi6, Arash Salemi7, Matt Moore8, Alison Ward9, Candace Gunnarsson10. 1. NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY. Electronic address: eugene.grossi@nyumc.org. 2. Main Line Health Care, Wynnewood, Pa. 3. Northeast Georgia Medical Center, Gainesville, Ga. 4. Penrose-St Francis Health Services, Colorado Springs, Colo. 5. TriHealth Heart Institute, Cincinnati, Ohio. 6. University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va. 7. New York Presbyterian-Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY. 8. Edwards Lifesciences LLC, Irvine, Calif. 9. NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY. 10. S2 Statistical Solutions, Inc, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Small series of thoracotomy for mitral valve repair have demonstrated clinical benefit. This multi-institutional administrative database analysis compares outcomes of thoracotomy and sternotomy approaches for mitral repair. METHODS: The Premier database was queried from 2007 to 2011 for mitral repair hospitalizations. Premier contains billing, cost, and coding data from more than 600 US hospitals, totaling 25 million discharges. Thoracotomy and sternotomy approaches were identified through expert rules; robotics were excluded. Propensity matching on baseline characteristics was performed. Regression analysis of surgical approach on outcomes and costs was modeled. RESULTS: Expert rule analysis positively identified thoracotomy in 847 and sternotomy in 566. Propensity matching created 2 groups of 367. Mortalities were similar (thoracotomy 1.1% vs sternotomy 1.9%). Sepsis and other infections were significantly lower with thoracotomy (1.1% vs 4.4%). After adjustment for hospital differences, thoracotomy carried a 17.2% lower hospitalization cost (-$8289) with a 2-day stay reduction. Readmission rates were significantly lower with thoracotomy (26.2% vs 35.7% at 30 days and 31.6% vs 44.1% at 90 days). Thoracotomy was more common in southern and northeastern hospitals (63% vs 37% and 64% vs 36%, respectively), teaching hospitals (64% vs 36%) and larger hospitals (>600 beds, 78% vs 22%). CONCLUSIONS: Relative to sternotomy, thoracotomy for mitral repairs provides similar mortality, less morbidity, fewer infections, shorter stay, and significant cost savings during primary admission. The markedly lower readmission rates for thoracotomy will translate into additional institutional cost savings when a penalty on hospitals begins under the Affordable Care Act's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.
OBJECTIVE: Small series of thoracotomy for mitral valve repair have demonstrated clinical benefit. This multi-institutional administrative database analysis compares outcomes of thoracotomy and sternotomy approaches for mitral repair. METHODS: The Premier database was queried from 2007 to 2011 for mitral repair hospitalizations. Premier contains billing, cost, and coding data from more than 600 US hospitals, totaling 25 million discharges. Thoracotomy and sternotomy approaches were identified through expert rules; robotics were excluded. Propensity matching on baseline characteristics was performed. Regression analysis of surgical approach on outcomes and costs was modeled. RESULTS: Expert rule analysis positively identified thoracotomy in 847 and sternotomy in 566. Propensity matching created 2 groups of 367. Mortalities were similar (thoracotomy 1.1% vs sternotomy 1.9%). Sepsis and other infections were significantly lower with thoracotomy (1.1% vs 4.4%). After adjustment for hospital differences, thoracotomy carried a 17.2% lower hospitalization cost (-$8289) with a 2-day stay reduction. Readmission rates were significantly lower with thoracotomy (26.2% vs 35.7% at 30 days and 31.6% vs 44.1% at 90 days). Thoracotomy was more common in southern and northeastern hospitals (63% vs 37% and 64% vs 36%, respectively), teaching hospitals (64% vs 36%) and larger hospitals (>600 beds, 78% vs 22%). CONCLUSIONS: Relative to sternotomy, thoracotomy for mitral repairs provides similar mortality, less morbidity, fewer infections, shorter stay, and significant cost savings during primary admission. The markedly lower readmission rates for thoracotomy will translate into additional institutional cost savings when a penalty on hospitals begins under the Affordable Care Act's Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program.
Authors: Rebecca H Maier; Adetayo S Kasim; Joseph Zacharias; Luke Vale; Richard Graham; Antony Walker; Grzegorz Laskawski; Ranjit Deshpande; Andrew Goodwin; Simon Kendall; Gavin J Murphy; Vipin Zamvar; Renzo Pessotto; Clinton Lloyd; Malcolm Dalrymple-Hay; Roberto Casula; Hunaid A Vohra; Franco Ciulli; Massimo Caputo; Serban Stoica; Max Baghai; Gunaratnam Niranjan; Prakash P Punjabi; Olaf Wendler; Leanne Marsay; Cristina Fernandez-Garcia; Paul Modi; Bilal H Kirmani; Mark D Pullan; Andrew D Muir; Dimitrios Pousios; Helen C Hancock; Enoch Akowuah Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 2.692