David C Fitzgerald1, Annie N Simpson2, Robert A Baker3, Xiaoting Wu4, Min Zhang5, Michael P Thompson4, Gaetano Paone6, Alphonse Delucia7, Donald S Likosky4. 1. College of Health Professions, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. Electronic address: fitzgerd@musc.edu. 2. College of Health Professions, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC. 3. Cardiac Surgery Perfusion Services and Quality and Outcomes Unit, Flinders Medical Centre and Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. 4. Department of Cardiac Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 5. Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 6. Division of Cardiac Surgery, Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, Mich. 7. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Bronson Methodist Hospital, Kalamazoo, Mich.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify to what extent distinguishing patient and procedural characteristics can explain center-level transfusion variation during coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. METHODS: Observational cohort study using the Perfusion Measures and Outcomes Registry from 43 adult cardiac surgical programs from July 1, 2011, to July 1, 2017. Iterative multilevel logistic regression models were constructed using patient demographic characteristics, preoperative risk factors, and intraoperative conservation strategies to progressively explain center-level transfusion variation. RESULTS: Of the 22,272 adult patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass, 7241 (32.5%) received at least 1 U allogeneic red blood cells (range, 10.9%-59.9%). When compared with patients who were not transfused, patients who received at least 1 U red blood cells were older (68 vs 64 years; P < .001), were women (41.5% vs 15.9%; P < .001), and had a lower body surface area (1.93 m2 vs 2.07 m2; P < .001), respectively. Among the models explaining center-level transfusion variability, the intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.07 for model 1 (random intercepts), 0.12 for model 2 (patient factors), 0.14 for model 3 (intraoperative factors), and 0.11 for model 4 (combined). The coefficient of variation for center-level transfusion rates were 0.31, 0.29, 0.40, and 0.30 for models 1 through 4, respectively. The majority of center-level variation could not be explained through models containing both patient and intraoperative factors. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that variation in center-level red blood cells transfusion cannot be explained by patient and procedural factors alone. Investigating organizational culture and programmatic infrastructure may be necessary to better understand variation in transfusion practices.
OBJECTIVE: To identify to what extent distinguishing patient and procedural characteristics can explain center-level transfusion variation during coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. METHODS: Observational cohort study using the Perfusion Measures and Outcomes Registry from 43 adult cardiac surgical programs from July 1, 2011, to July 1, 2017. Iterative multilevel logistic regression models were constructed using patient demographic characteristics, preoperative risk factors, and intraoperative conservation strategies to progressively explain center-level transfusion variation. RESULTS: Of the 22,272 adult patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass, 7241 (32.5%) received at least 1 U allogeneic red blood cells (range, 10.9%-59.9%). When compared with patients who were not transfused, patients who received at least 1 U red blood cells were older (68 vs 64 years; P < .001), were women (41.5% vs 15.9%; P < .001), and had a lower body surface area (1.93 m2 vs 2.07 m2; P < .001), respectively. Among the models explaining center-level transfusion variability, the intraclass correlation coefficients were 0.07 for model 1 (random intercepts), 0.12 for model 2 (patient factors), 0.14 for model 3 (intraoperative factors), and 0.11 for model 4 (combined). The coefficient of variation for center-level transfusion rates were 0.31, 0.29, 0.40, and 0.30 for models 1 through 4, respectively. The majority of center-level variation could not be explained through models containing both patient and intraoperative factors. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that variation in center-level red blood cells transfusion cannot be explained by patient and procedural factors alone. Investigating organizational culture and programmatic infrastructure may be necessary to better understand variation in transfusion practices.
Authors: Anton Camaj; Darin B Zahuranec; Gaetano Paone; Barbara R Benedetti; Warren D Behr; Marc A Zimmerman; Min Zhang; Robert S Kramer; Jason Penn; Patricia F Theurer; Theron A Paugh; Milo Engoren; Alphonse DeLucia; Richard L Prager; Donald S Likosky Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Kevin Sexton; Amanda Johnson; Amanda Gotsch; Ahmed A Hussein; Lora Cavuoto; Khurshid A Guru Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2017-07-08 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: P C Hébert; G Wells; C Martin; M Tweeddale; J Marshall; M Blajchman; G Pagliarello; I Schweitzer; L Calder Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Ludhmila A Hajjar; Jean-Louis Vincent; Filomena R B G Galas; Rosana E Nakamura; Carolina M P Silva; Marilia H Santos; Julia Fukushima; Roberto Kalil Filho; Denise B Sierra; Neuza H Lopes; Thais Mauad; Aretusa C Roquim; Marcia R Sundin; Wanderson C Leão; Juliano P Almeida; Pablo M Pomerantzeff; Luis O Dallan; Fabio B Jatene; Noedir A G Stolf; Jose O C Auler Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-10-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jeffrey L Carson; Brenda J Grossman; Steven Kleinman; Alan T Tinmouth; Marisa B Marques; Mark K Fung; John B Holcomb; Orieji Illoh; Lewis J Kaplan; Louis M Katz; Sunil V Rao; John D Roback; Aryeh Shander; Aaron A R Tobian; Robert Weinstein; Lisa Grace Swinton McLaughlin; Benjamin Djulbegovic Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Donald S Likosky; Min Zhang; Gaetano Paone; John Collins; Alphonse DeLucia; Theodore Schreiber; Patty Theurer; Samer Kazziha; Dale Leffler; Douglas J Wunderly; Hitinder S Gurm; Richard L Prager Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Jacob T Gutsche; Zev Noah Kornfield; Rebecca M Speck; Prakash A Patel; Pavan Atluri; John G Augoustides Journal: J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth Date: 2013-09-21 Impact factor: 2.628
Authors: Alan H Menkis; Janet Martin; Davy C H Cheng; David C Fitzgerald; John J Freedman; Changqing Gao; Andreas Koster; G Scott Mackenzie; Gavin J Murphy; Bruce Spiess; Niv Ad Journal: Innovations (Phila) Date: 2012 Jul-Aug