Rohan Khera1, Ambarish Pandey1, Thomas Koshy1, Colby Ayers1, Brahmajee K Nallamothu2, Sandeep R Das1, Mark H Drazner1, Michael E Jessen3, Ajay J Kirtane4,5, Timothy J Gardner6, James A de Lemos1, Deepak L Bhatt7, Dharam J Kumbhani1. 1. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 2. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 3. Department of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. 4. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York. 5. Associate Editor. 6. Center for Heart & Vascular Health, Christiana Care Health System, Wilmington, Delaware. 7. Brigham and Women's Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
Importance: Identifying high-performing surgical valve centers with the best surgical outcomes is challenging. Hospital surgical volume is a frequently used surrogate for outcomes. However, its ability to distinguish low-performing and high-performing hospitals remains unknown. Objective: To examine the association of hospital procedure volume with hospital performance for aortic and mitral valve (MV) surgical procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants: Within an all-payer nationally representative data set of inpatient hospitalizations, this study identified 682 unique hospitals performing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and MV replacement and repair with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) between 2007 and 2011. Procedural outcomes were further assessed for a 10-year period (2005-2014) to assess representativeness of study period. Main Outcomes and Measures: In-hospital risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR) calculated using hierarchical models and an empirical bayesian approach with volume-based shrinkage that allowed for reliability adjustment. Results: At 682 US hospitals, 70 295 SAVR, 19 913 MV replacement, and 17 037 MV repair procedures were performed between 2007 and 2011, with a median annual volume of 43 (interquartile range [IQR], 23-76) SAVR, 13 (IQR, 6-22) MV replacement, and 9 (IQR, 4-19) MV repair procedures. Of 225 SAVR hospitals in the highest-volume tertile, 34.7% and 36.0% were in the highest-RSMR tertile for SAVR + CABG and isolated SAVR procedures, respectively, while 21.5% and 17.5% of the 228 SAVR hospitals in the lowest-volume tertile were in the lowest respective RSMR tertile. Similarly, 36.8% and 43.5% of hospitals in the highest tertile of volume for MV replacement and repair, respectively, were in the corresponding highest-RSMR tertile, and 17.4% and 11.2% of the low-volume hospitals were in the lowest-RSMR tertile for MV replacement and repair, respectively. There was limited correlation between outcomes for SAVR and MV procedures at an institution. If solely volume-based tertiles were used to categorize hospitals for quality, 44.7% of all valve hospitals would be misclassified (as either low performing or high performing) when assessing performance based on tertiles of RSMR. Conclusions and Relevance: Hospital procedure volume alone frequently misclassifies hospital performance with regard to risk-standardized outcomes after aortic and MV surgical procedures. Valve surgery quality improvement endeavors should focus on a more comprehensive assessment that includes risk-adjusted outcomes rather than hospital volume alone.
Importance: Identifying high-performing surgical valve centers with the best surgical outcomes is challenging. Hospital surgical volume is a frequently used surrogate for outcomes. However, its ability to distinguish low-performing and high-performing hospitals remains unknown. Objective: To examine the association of hospital procedure volume with hospital performance for aortic and mitral valve (MV) surgical procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants: Within an all-payer nationally representative data set of inpatient hospitalizations, this study identified 682 unique hospitals performing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and MV replacement and repair with or without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) between 2007 and 2011. Procedural outcomes were further assessed for a 10-year period (2005-2014) to assess representativeness of study period. Main Outcomes and Measures: In-hospital risk-standardized mortality rate (RSMR) calculated using hierarchical models and an empirical bayesian approach with volume-based shrinkage that allowed for reliability adjustment. Results: At 682 US hospitals, 70 295 SAVR, 19 913 MV replacement, and 17 037 MV repair procedures were performed between 2007 and 2011, with a median annual volume of 43 (interquartile range [IQR], 23-76) SAVR, 13 (IQR, 6-22) MV replacement, and 9 (IQR, 4-19) MV repair procedures. Of 225 SAVR hospitals in the highest-volume tertile, 34.7% and 36.0% were in the highest-RSMR tertile for SAVR + CABG and isolated SAVR procedures, respectively, while 21.5% and 17.5% of the 228 SAVR hospitals in the lowest-volume tertile were in the lowest respective RSMR tertile. Similarly, 36.8% and 43.5% of hospitals in the highest tertile of volume for MV replacement and repair, respectively, were in the corresponding highest-RSMR tertile, and 17.4% and 11.2% of the low-volume hospitals were in the lowest-RSMR tertile for MV replacement and repair, respectively. There was limited correlation between outcomes for SAVR and MV procedures at an institution. If solely volume-based tertiles were used to categorize hospitals for quality, 44.7% of all valve hospitals would be misclassified (as either low performing or high performing) when assessing performance based on tertiles of RSMR. Conclusions and Relevance: Hospital procedure volume alone frequently misclassifies hospital performance with regard to risk-standardized outcomes after aortic and MV surgical procedures. Valve surgery quality improvement endeavors should focus on a more comprehensive assessment that includes risk-adjusted outcomes rather than hospital volume alone.
Authors: John D Birkmeyer; Andrea E Siewers; Emily V A Finlayson; Therese A Stukel; F Lee Lucas; Ida Batista; H Gilbert Welch; David E Wennberg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-04-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sahil Khera; Dhaval Kolte; Tanush Gupta; Andrew Goldsweig; Poonam Velagapudi; Ankur Kalra; Gilbert H L Tang; Wilbert S Aronow; Gregg C Fonarow; Deepak L Bhatt; Herbert D Aronow; Neal S Kleiman; Michael Reardon; Paul C Gordon; Barry Sharaf; J Dawn Abbott Journal: JAMA Cardiol Date: 2017-07-01 Impact factor: 14.676
Authors: Joanna Chikwe; Nana Toyoda; Anelechi C Anyanwu; Shinobu Itagaki; Natalia N Egorova; Percy Boateng; Ahmed El-Eshmawi; David H Adams Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2017-04-24 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Darragh O'Neill; Owen Nicholas; Chris P Gale; Peter Ludman; Mark A de Belder; Adam Timmis; Keith A A Fox; Iain A Simpson; Simon Redwood; Simon G Ray Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2017-03
Authors: Arman Kilic; Ashish S Shah; John V Conte; William A Baumgartner; David D Yuh Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Richard A E Ramsingh; Gianni D Angelini; Risshi D Rampersad; Natasha C Rahaman; Giovanni Teodori Journal: Braz J Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2022-05-02