Thoracic Surgery News (Archived)

The era of the Affordable Care Act is upon us, and short of an unlikely repeal following midterm elections, this will remain the law of the land. As surgical residents, most of us have neither the time nor mental stamina to become significantly entrenched in politics. As a result, many of us know less about the impact that the Affordable Care Act will have on our future livelihood than many of the Senators did when they passed the bill on December 24, 2009. While most of the public focus has been on the individual mandate, pre-existing conditions, and insurance exchanges, further hidden from the public eye are the methods by which our fundamental model for health care reimbursement will change.

Much of the mystery was dispelled for me this May, when I heard a lecture entitled "The Perfect Storm: The Affordable Care Act and the Repeal of the SGR" by Dr. Jeffrey Rich. Dr. Rich’s presentation was the 2014 Norman E. Shumway, MD, Visiting Professorship Lecture at Stanford (Calif.) University, a webcast of which is available at http://ctsurgery.stanford.edu/media/.

Dr. Rich has a unique perspective on the issue of health care reimbursement, as he has served both as president of STS from 2012-2013 and director of the Center for Medicare Management, part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in 2008, in the political tumult leading up to the passage of the Affordable Care Act. On top of this, he has remained a practicing cardiothoracic surgeon in the Sentara Health System and sits as director-at-large for the Virginia Cardiac Surgery Quality Initiative. It is impossible to overstate the impact that he and his staff have had on the future of health care reimbursement. His recent lecture highlighted the ideological change in payment models that the Affordable Care Act embodies, along with the carrots and the sticks that the government will be wielding over the next 5 years to change physician and hospital behavior. This, along with the untenable continuation of the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) with all of its problems, portends huge swings both positive and negative for the reimbursement of all doctors, and cardiothoracic surgeons in particular. Early adopters may find themselves with a much-needed windfall, while those who do not anticipate the changes may find themselves in dire financial straits.

First, let us examine where we stand. The United States spends 17.6% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. The nearest rival sits at 12%. State and federal government together spent $1.5 trillion on health care in 2013. Add private insurance into the mix and the figure is $2.8 trillion. Our life expectancy has not followed the money, and the rate of increase in health care spending is far outstripping inflation and the growth in our GDP. Our spending has increased exponentially since the passage of the Social Security Amendments of 1965 and shows no sign of slowing down. These statistics are well publicized, and should no longer be a surprise to anyone.

Keeping in mind that hindsight is 20/20, it seems obvious how we got here. The private health insurance industry took off during WWII, when competitive wage controls were put in place to keep skilled laborers in jobs supporting the war effort. To compete for laborers, private sector employers began offering health insurance policies. Shortly thereafter, public pressure to provide a health care safety net culminated in the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, and our complex public/private health insurance environment was born. For the first decade or so, physician reimbursement was based on "reasonable charge," meaning that doctors sent a bill to Medicare and, if it was considered reasonable, the doctor was paid. This fee-for-service model can be seen as a blank check of sorts, in that it contained few stipulations to withhold repayment for redundant or unnecessary tests and procedures. Expenses associated with complications also were reimbursable. The incentive to "do more" was set. It is worth noting that the Social Security Amendments of 1965 are federal law, and the law stipulates that reimbursement is tied to the amount of work that a physician performs, which also forbids associating reimbursement with the quality of work that the physician produces. It takes an act of Congress to change such law.

The Affordable Care Act is that act. Dr. Rich’s work at CMS paved the way for the inclusion of "Title III: Improving the quality and efficiency of health care," which allows Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to be altered based on efficiency and outcomes, moving away (although not disintegrating) the fee-for-service model. It incentivizes the development of Accountable Care Organizations and Clinically Integrated Networks to encourage cross-specialty collaboration within the fee-for-service model and lays the groundwork for physician and hospital reimbursement to be based on high-quality, efficient, and appropriate care.

This is the most comprehensive change to the status quo, but it is by no means the first. By 1975, the federal government could see that open fee-for-service was leading to skyrocketing health care costs. It began experimenting with ways to curb physician charges. It pegged reimbursements to the Medicare Economic Index (still used to update hospital reimbursements by 3.2%-3.6% per year) and then tried basing reimbursement on relative value units. Costs continued to rise. Thirty years after the 1965 law, as health care spending continued to spiral out of control, the Sustainable Growth Rate was applied to physician repayment as an attempt to reel it in. The basic premise was that increased costs from increased patient and procedure volume would be curbed by decreasing the reimbursement per procedure.

The sustainable growth model essentially placed a spending target that would grow in step with GDP using the total expenditures beginning in 1996 as a benchmark. If, during a given year, spending outstripped the target, the following year a compensatory decrease in physician reimbursement would be enacted. If spending were less than the target, then physician payments would increase. Expenditures have exceeded the target every year since 2002, and each year our spending gets further and further from the benchmark, compounding the penalty. If the SGR penalties were allowed, it is estimated that physician repayment would drop by 25%-35% in the next few years. Each time the penalty is about to be applied, a fix is passed by Congress, saving our livelihoods at the last minute. Although we should be thankful not to take a 35% pay cut, the SGR and its fixes increased physician repayment by a mere 5.1% between 1992 and 2012. For comparison, Social Security benefits, adjusted annually to compensate increasing cost of living, have risen 52.9% in the same period. Meanwhile, as I mentioned earlier, hospital reimbursement continues to be tied to the Medicare Economic Index, which yields a fairly predictable payment increase of 3.2%-3.6% each year. The Affordable Care Act operates as a law separate from the SGR law, though the two are closely intertwined.

Title III of the Affordable Care Act provides a number of new incentives and penalties that will help make efficiency and quality goals that affect profit at least as much as procedural volume. It will impact hospitals and physicians in a number of new and potentially positive ways. Most immediately concerning to hospitals and medical groups are the incentives for quality. With value-based purchasing, Medicare will withhold 2% of diagnosis-related group (DRG) reimbursements to hospitals at the beginning of a year, giving them the chance to earn it back at the end of the year if they meet quality and efficiency performance goals. The top performers will receive a bonus from the funds collected from those who do not meet goals, making this a budget-neutral operation. Cardiothoracic surgeons will feel this scrutiny early, as the first five DRGs subject to the law are acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, surgeries, and health care–associated infections. As time passes, more diagnoses will be added.

Payments will be based on bundled care, meaning that a hospital will be paid one sum to cover the peri-admission period, starting from 3 days prior to 30 days after admission. Complications, readmissions, and repeat tests will not generate additional funds for the hospital. You can expect that daily chest x-rays and multiple echocardiograms will generate a lot of e-mails to attending physicians. Other preventable hospital-acquired conditions, such as catheter-associated urinary tract infections and pressure ulcers, if present in rates beyond the norm for the country, could cut reimbursements an additional 1%. Patient satisfaction scores will influence hospital reimbursement. Readmission rates beyond the specified cutoff for each admission will result in a 3% hospital pay cut, again, starting with the same set of diagnoses. When meaningful use of electronic health records incentives are factored in, hospitals are looking at a 7% swing on reimbursements for the DRGs listed above by 2017. Hospitals typically operate on a profit margin around 3.5%.

On the individual physician level, there are a number of changes. Already in place was a bonus for participating in physician quality reporting systems (PQRS), such as the STS database. By 2016 the bonus for participating will become a 2% pay cut for not participating. Thankfully, our specialty has been forward thinking in this regard, and the majority of cardiothoracic practices already participate in the STS database. Similar to value-based purchasing, the physician value modifier will apply a 2% bonus or penalty to reimbursements, based on a broad spectrum of quality measures, including patient safety, population and community health, total cost per patient by condition, and patient experience. Again, this will be budget neutral. When all of the items are tallied, the lowest-performing providers could see a 6% decrease in their personal reimbursement.

The SGR has not been fixed with the Affordable Care Act. Dr. Rich, in his role as STS president, provided testimony to Congress leading up to the most recent attempt to reform the law. Part of the main thrust of his testimony was that each specialty needs to set its own outcomes standards through database-driven research. Incentives for improved outcomes need to be in place for all members of the heart team, not just the physicians. All three of the proposed bills that followed his testimony included such incentives, but they also included even more dismal updates to physician payments than we have seen in the past 20 years. For better or for worse, none of the bills passed, and we can look forward to more anxiety as we await the next SGR patch. Whatever durable solution passes will likely focus on these new models of payment but without a significant boost in hospital income.

Currently, the alternative payment model (APM) pilot programs are still being developed. CMS has a $10 billion budget to fund the pilot programs, and consulting groups that advised the agency chose cardiothoracic surgery as a top priority for APM development. Current discussions indicate that participants in APMs could get a 5% bonus and would not be subject to the physician value modifier.

So how does this apply to us residents? Despite our ground-level perspective, we must recognize that we are straddling two drastically different eras in the practice of medicine. It will be the duty of all of us, not just our attendings, to reduce our costs and provide better patient care. This may mean using our stethoscope more effectively or making those extra phone calls to avoid unnecessary or repeated tests. We need to rebel against the ideology of physician shift work by owning our patients, but still work effectively in that system. When it comes time to seek our first jobs, we should focus not just on the department that we will work on, but its context within the local hospital system. The most vibrant department within an unresponsive hospital system will drown in the future penalties, and likewise for an unenthusiastic department within a forward-thinking system. In short, we need to start training ourselves to be keener, sharper, and more agile physicians, and to position ourselves within like-minded environments. Perhaps more important than any of these, we need to reclaim the right to shape our own profession. In recent history there has not been a better opportunity for cardiothoracic surgeons as a group to assert themselves as adept physicians and leaders. Whether we become head of CMS, participate in STS fly-ins to Capitol Hill, write our congressman about the issues we face, or engage our hospitals to anticipate the coming changes, it is up to us to ensure that we have a future.

Dr. Zeigler is one of the outgoing resident medical editors for Thoracic Surgery News.

The era of the Affordable Care Act is upon us, and short of an unlikely repeal following midterm elections, this will remain the law of the land. As surgical residents, most of us have neither the time nor mental stamina to become significantly entrenched in politics. As a result, many of us know less about the impact that the Affordable Care Act will have on our future livelihood than many of the Senators did when they passed the bill on December 24, 2009. While most of the public focus has been on the individual mandate, pre-existing conditions, and insurance exchanges, further hidden from the public eye are the methods by which our fundamental model for health care reimbursement will change.

Much of the mystery was dispelled for me this May, when I heard a lecture entitled "The Perfect Storm: The Affordable Care Act and the Repeal of the SGR" by Dr. Jeffrey Rich. Dr. Rich’s presentation was the 2014 Norman E. Shumway, MD, Visiting Professorship Lecture at Stanford (Calif.) University, a webcast of which is available at http://ctsurgery.stanford.edu/media/.

Dr. Rich has a unique perspective on the issue of health care reimbursement, as he has served both as president of STS from 2012-2013 and director of the Center for Medicare Management, part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in 2008, in the political tumult leading up to the passage of the Affordable Care Act. On top of this, he has remained a practicing cardiothoracic surgeon in the Sentara Health System and sits as director-at-large for the Virginia Cardiac Surgery Quality Initiative. It is impossible to overstate the impact that he and his staff have had on the future of health care reimbursement. His recent lecture highlighted the ideological change in payment models that the Affordable Care Act embodies, along with the carrots and the sticks that the government will be wielding over the next 5 years to change physician and hospital behavior. This, along with the untenable continuation of the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) with all of its problems, portends huge swings both positive and negative for the reimbursement of all doctors, and cardiothoracic surgeons in particular. Early adopters may find themselves with a much-needed windfall, while those who do not anticipate the changes may find themselves in dire financial straits.

First, let us examine where we stand. The United States spends 17.6% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. The nearest rival sits at 12%. State and federal government together spent $1.5 trillion on health care in 2013. Add private insurance into the mix and the figure is $2.8 trillion. Our life expectancy has not followed the money, and the rate of increase in health care spending is far outstripping inflation and the growth in our GDP. Our spending has increased exponentially since the passage of the Social Security Amendments of 1965 and shows no sign of slowing down. These statistics are well publicized, and should no longer be a surprise to anyone.

Keeping in mind that hindsight is 20/20, it seems obvious how we got here. The private health insurance industry took off during WWII, when competitive wage controls were put in place to keep skilled laborers in jobs supporting the war effort. To compete for laborers, private sector employers began offering health insurance policies. Shortly thereafter, public pressure to provide a health care safety net culminated in the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, and our complex public/private health insurance environment was born. For the first decade or so, physician reimbursement was based on "reasonable charge," meaning that doctors sent a bill to Medicare and, if it was considered reasonable, the doctor was paid. This fee-for-service model can be seen as a blank check of sorts, in that it contained few stipulations to withhold repayment for redundant or unnecessary tests and procedures. Expenses associated with complications also were reimbursable. The incentive to "do more" was set. It is worth noting that the Social Security Amendments of 1965 are federal law, and the law stipulates that reimbursement is tied to the amount of work that a physician performs, which also forbids associating reimbursement with the quality of work that the physician produces. It takes an act of Congress to change such law.

The Affordable Care Act is that act. Dr. Rich’s work at CMS paved the way for the inclusion of "Title III: Improving the quality and efficiency of health care," which allows Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to be altered based on efficiency and outcomes, moving away (although not disintegrating) the fee-for-service model. It incentivizes the development of Accountable Care Organizations and Clinically Integrated Networks to encourage cross-specialty collaboration within the fee-for-service model and lays the groundwork for physician and hospital reimbursement to be based on high-quality, efficient, and appropriate care.

This is the most comprehensive change to the status quo, but it is by no means the first. By 1975, the federal government could see that open fee-for-service was leading to skyrocketing health care costs. It began experimenting with ways to curb physician charges. It pegged reimbursements to the Medicare Economic Index (still used to update hospital reimbursements by 3.2%-3.6% per year) and then tried basing reimbursement on relative value units. Costs continued to rise. Thirty years after the 1965 law, as health care spending continued to spiral out of control, the Sustainable Growth Rate was applied to physician repayment as an attempt to reel it in. The basic premise was that increased costs from increased patient and procedure volume would be curbed by decreasing the reimbursement per procedure.

The sustainable growth model essentially placed a spending target that would grow in step with GDP using the total expenditures beginning in 1996 as a benchmark. If, during a given year, spending outstripped the target, the following year a compensatory decrease in physician reimbursement would be enacted. If spending were less than the target, then physician payments would increase. Expenditures have exceeded the target every year since 2002, and each year our spending gets further and further from the benchmark, compounding the penalty. If the SGR penalties were allowed, it is estimated that physician repayment would drop by 25%-35% in the next few years. Each time the penalty is about to be applied, a fix is passed by Congress, saving our livelihoods at the last minute. Although we should be thankful not to take a 35% pay cut, the SGR and its fixes increased physician repayment by a mere 5.1% between 1992 and 2012. For comparison, Social Security benefits, adjusted annually to compensate increasing cost of living, have risen 52.9% in the same period. Meanwhile, as I mentioned earlier, hospital reimbursement continues to be tied to the Medicare Economic Index, which yields a fairly predictable payment increase of 3.2%-3.6% each year. The Affordable Care Act operates as a law separate from the SGR law, though the two are closely intertwined.

Title III of the Affordable Care Act provides a number of new incentives and penalties that will help make efficiency and quality goals that affect profit at least as much as procedural volume. It will impact hospitals and physicians in a number of new and potentially positive ways. Most immediately concerning to hospitals and medical groups are the incentives for quality. With value-based purchasing, Medicare will withhold 2% of diagnosis-related group (DRG) reimbursements to hospitals at the beginning of a year, giving them the chance to earn it back at the end of the year if they meet quality and efficiency performance goals. The top performers will receive a bonus from the funds collected from those who do not meet goals, making this a budget-neutral operation. Cardiothoracic surgeons will feel this scrutiny early, as the first five DRGs subject to the law are acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, surgeries, and health care–associated infections. As time passes, more diagnoses will be added.

Payments will be based on bundled care, meaning that a hospital will be paid one sum to cover the peri-admission period, starting from 3 days prior to 30 days after admission. Complications, readmissions, and repeat tests will not generate additional funds for the hospital. You can expect that daily chest x-rays and multiple echocardiograms will generate a lot of e-mails to attending physicians. Other preventable hospital-acquired conditions, such as catheter-associated urinary tract infections and pressure ulcers, if present in rates beyond the norm for the country, could cut reimbursements an additional 1%. Patient satisfaction scores will influence hospital reimbursement. Readmission rates beyond the specified cutoff for each admission will result in a 3% hospital pay cut, again, starting with the same set of diagnoses. When meaningful use of electronic health records incentives are factored in, hospitals are looking at a 7% swing on reimbursements for the DRGs listed above by 2017. Hospitals typically operate on a profit margin around 3.5%.

On the individual physician level, there are a number of changes. Already in place was a bonus for participating in physician quality reporting systems (PQRS), such as the STS database. By 2016 the bonus for participating will become a 2% pay cut for not participating. Thankfully, our specialty has been forward thinking in this regard, and the majority of cardiothoracic practices already participate in the STS database. Similar to value-based purchasing, the physician value modifier will apply a 2% bonus or penalty to reimbursements, based on a broad spectrum of quality measures, including patient safety, population and community health, total cost per patient by condition, and patient experience. Again, this will be budget neutral. When all of the items are tallied, the lowest-performing providers could see a 6% decrease in their personal reimbursement.

The SGR has not been fixed with the Affordable Care Act. Dr. Rich, in his role as STS president, provided testimony to Congress leading up to the most recent attempt to reform the law. Part of the main thrust of his testimony was that each specialty needs to set its own outcomes standards through database-driven research. Incentives for improved outcomes need to be in place for all members of the heart team, not just the physicians. All three of the proposed bills that followed his testimony included such incentives, but they also included even more dismal updates to physician payments than we have seen in the past 20 years. For better or for worse, none of the bills passed, and we can look forward to more anxiety as we await the next SGR patch. Whatever durable solution passes will likely focus on these new models of payment but without a significant boost in hospital income.

Currently, the alternative payment model (APM) pilot programs are still being developed. CMS has a $10 billion budget to fund the pilot programs, and consulting groups that advised the agency chose cardiothoracic surgery as a top priority for APM development. Current discussions indicate that participants in APMs could get a 5% bonus and would not be subject to the physician value modifier.

So how does this apply to us residents? Despite our ground-level perspective, we must recognize that we are straddling two drastically different eras in the practice of medicine. It will be the duty of all of us, not just our attendings, to reduce our costs and provide better patient care. This may mean using our stethoscope more effectively or making those extra phone calls to avoid unnecessary or repeated tests. We need to rebel against the ideology of physician shift work by owning our patients, but still work effectively in that system. When it comes time to seek our first jobs, we should focus not just on the department that we will work on, but its context within the local hospital system. The most vibrant department within an unresponsive hospital system will drown in the future penalties, and likewise for an unenthusiastic department within a forward-thinking system. In short, we need to start training ourselves to be keener, sharper, and more agile physicians, and to position ourselves within like-minded environments. Perhaps more important than any of these, we need to reclaim the right to shape our own profession. In recent history there has not been a better opportunity for cardiothoracic surgeons as a group to assert themselves as adept physicians and leaders. Whether we become head of CMS, participate in STS fly-ins to Capitol Hill, write our congressman about the issues we face, or engage our hospitals to anticipate the coming changes, it is up to us to ensure that we have a future.

Dr. Zeigler is one of the outgoing resident medical editors for Thoracic Surgery News.

The era of the Affordable Care Act is upon us, and short of an unlikely repeal following midterm elections, this will remain the law of the land. As surgical residents, most of us have neither the time nor mental stamina to become significantly entrenched in politics. As a result, many of us know less about the impact that the Affordable Care Act will have on our future livelihood than many of the Senators did when they passed the bill on December 24, 2009. While most of the public focus has been on the individual mandate, pre-existing conditions, and insurance exchanges, further hidden from the public eye are the methods by which our fundamental model for health care reimbursement will change.

Much of the mystery was dispelled for me this May, when I heard a lecture entitled "The Perfect Storm: The Affordable Care Act and the Repeal of the SGR" by Dr. Jeffrey Rich. Dr. Rich’s presentation was the 2014 Norman E. Shumway, MD, Visiting Professorship Lecture at Stanford (Calif.) University, a webcast of which is available at http://ctsurgery.stanford.edu/media/.

Dr. Rich has a unique perspective on the issue of health care reimbursement, as he has served both as president of STS from 2012-2013 and director of the Center for Medicare Management, part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in 2008, in the political tumult leading up to the passage of the Affordable Care Act. On top of this, he has remained a practicing cardiothoracic surgeon in the Sentara Health System and sits as director-at-large for the Virginia Cardiac Surgery Quality Initiative. It is impossible to overstate the impact that he and his staff have had on the future of health care reimbursement. His recent lecture highlighted the ideological change in payment models that the Affordable Care Act embodies, along with the carrots and the sticks that the government will be wielding over the next 5 years to change physician and hospital behavior. This, along with the untenable continuation of the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) with all of its problems, portends huge swings both positive and negative for the reimbursement of all doctors, and cardiothoracic surgeons in particular. Early adopters may find themselves with a much-needed windfall, while those who do not anticipate the changes may find themselves in dire financial straits.

First, let us examine where we stand. The United States spends 17.6% of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. The nearest rival sits at 12%. State and federal government together spent $1.5 trillion on health care in 2013. Add private insurance into the mix and the figure is $2.8 trillion. Our life expectancy has not followed the money, and the rate of increase in health care spending is far outstripping inflation and the growth in our GDP. Our spending has increased exponentially since the passage of the Social Security Amendments of 1965 and shows no sign of slowing down. These statistics are well publicized, and should no longer be a surprise to anyone.

Keeping in mind that hindsight is 20/20, it seems obvious how we got here. The private health insurance industry took off during WWII, when competitive wage controls were put in place to keep skilled laborers in jobs supporting the war effort. To compete for laborers, private sector employers began offering health insurance policies. Shortly thereafter, public pressure to provide a health care safety net culminated in the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, and our complex public/private health insurance environment was born. For the first decade or so, physician reimbursement was based on "reasonable charge," meaning that doctors sent a bill to Medicare and, if it was considered reasonable, the doctor was paid. This fee-for-service model can be seen as a blank check of sorts, in that it contained few stipulations to withhold repayment for redundant or unnecessary tests and procedures. Expenses associated with complications also were reimbursable. The incentive to "do more" was set. It is worth noting that the Social Security Amendments of 1965 are federal law, and the law stipulates that reimbursement is tied to the amount of work that a physician performs, which also forbids associating reimbursement with the quality of work that the physician produces. It takes an act of Congress to change such law.

The Affordable Care Act is that act. Dr. Rich’s work at CMS paved the way for the inclusion of "Title III: Improving the quality and efficiency of health care," which allows Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to be altered based on efficiency and outcomes, moving away (although not disintegrating) the fee-for-service model. It incentivizes the development of Accountable Care Organizations and Clinically Integrated Networks to encourage cross-specialty collaboration within the fee-for-service model and lays the groundwork for physician and hospital reimbursement to be based on high-quality, efficient, and appropriate care.

This is the most comprehensive change to the status quo, but it is by no means the first. By 1975, the federal government could see that open fee-for-service was leading to skyrocketing health care costs. It began experimenting with ways to curb physician charges. It pegged reimbursements to the Medicare Economic Index (still used to update hospital reimbursements by 3.2%-3.6% per year) and then tried basing reimbursement on relative value units. Costs continued to rise. Thirty years after the 1965 law, as health care spending continued to spiral out of control, the Sustainable Growth Rate was applied to physician repayment as an attempt to reel it in. The basic premise was that increased costs from increased patient and procedure volume would be curbed by decreasing the reimbursement per procedure.

The sustainable growth model essentially placed a spending target that would grow in step with GDP using the total expenditures beginning in 1996 as a benchmark. If, during a given year, spending outstripped the target, the following year a compensatory decrease in physician reimbursement would be enacted. If spending were less than the target, then physician payments would increase. Expenditures have exceeded the target every year since 2002, and each year our spending gets further and further from the benchmark, compounding the penalty. If the SGR penalties were allowed, it is estimated that physician repayment would drop by 25%-35% in the next few years. Each time the penalty is about to be applied, a fix is passed by Congress, saving our livelihoods at the last minute. Although we should be thankful not to take a 35% pay cut, the SGR and its fixes increased physician repayment by a mere 5.1% between 1992 and 2012. For comparison, Social Security benefits, adjusted annually to compensate increasing cost of living, have risen 52.9% in the same period. Meanwhile, as I mentioned earlier, hospital reimbursement continues to be tied to the Medicare Economic Index, which yields a fairly predictable payment increase of 3.2%-3.6% each year. The Affordable Care Act operates as a law separate from the SGR law, though the two are closely intertwined.

Title III of the Affordable Care Act provides a number of new incentives and penalties that will help make efficiency and quality goals that affect profit at least as much as procedural volume. It will impact hospitals and physicians in a number of new and potentially positive ways. Most immediately concerning to hospitals and medical groups are the incentives for quality. With value-based purchasing, Medicare will withhold 2% of diagnosis-related group (DRG) reimbursements to hospitals at the beginning of a year, giving them the chance to earn it back at the end of the year if they meet quality and efficiency performance goals. The top performers will receive a bonus from the funds collected from those who do not meet goals, making this a budget-neutral operation. Cardiothoracic surgeons will feel this scrutiny early, as the first five DRGs subject to the law are acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia, surgeries, and health care–associated infections. As time passes, more diagnoses will be added.

Payments will be based on bundled care, meaning that a hospital will be paid one sum to cover the peri-admission period, starting from 3 days prior to 30 days after admission. Complications, readmissions, and repeat tests will not generate additional funds for the hospital. You can expect that daily chest x-rays and multiple echocardiograms will generate a lot of e-mails to attending physicians. Other preventable hospital-acquired conditions, such as catheter-associated urinary tract infections and pressure ulcers, if present in rates beyond the norm for the country, could cut reimbursements an additional 1%. Patient satisfaction scores will influence hospital reimbursement. Readmission rates beyond the specified cutoff for each admission will result in a 3% hospital pay cut, again, starting with the same set of diagnoses. When meaningful use of electronic health records incentives are factored in, hospitals are looking at a 7% swing on reimbursements for the DRGs listed above by 2017. Hospitals typically operate on a profit margin around 3.5%.

On the individual physician level, there are a number of changes. Already in place was a bonus for participating in physician quality reporting systems (PQRS), such as the STS database. By 2016 the bonus for participating will become a 2% pay cut for not participating. Thankfully, our specialty has been forward thinking in this regard, and the majority of cardiothoracic practices already participate in the STS database. Similar to value-based purchasing, the physician value modifier will apply a 2% bonus or penalty to reimbursements, based on a broad spectrum of quality measures, including patient safety, population and community health, total cost per patient by condition, and patient experience. Again, this will be budget neutral. When all of the items are tallied, the lowest-performing providers could see a 6% decrease in their personal reimbursement.

The SGR has not been fixed with the Affordable Care Act. Dr. Rich, in his role as STS president, provided testimony to Congress leading up to the most recent attempt to reform the law. Part of the main thrust of his testimony was that each specialty needs to set its own outcomes standards through database-driven research. Incentives for improved outcomes need to be in place for all members of the heart team, not just the physicians. All three of the proposed bills that followed his testimony included such incentives, but they also included even more dismal updates to physician payments than we have seen in the past 20 years. For better or for worse, none of the bills passed, and we can look forward to more anxiety as we await the next SGR patch. Whatever durable solution passes will likely focus on these new models of payment but without a significant boost in hospital income.

Currently, the alternative payment model (APM) pilot programs are still being developed. CMS has a $10 billion budget to fund the pilot programs, and consulting groups that advised the agency chose cardiothoracic surgery as a top priority for APM development. Current discussions indicate that participants in APMs could get a 5% bonus and would not be subject to the physician value modifier.

So how does this apply to us residents? Despite our ground-level perspective, we must recognize that we are straddling two drastically different eras in the practice of medicine. It will be the duty of all of us, not just our attendings, to reduce our costs and provide better patient care. This may mean using our stethoscope more effectively or making those extra phone calls to avoid unnecessary or repeated tests. We need to rebel against the ideology of physician shift work by owning our patients, but still work effectively in that system. When it comes time to seek our first jobs, we should focus not just on the department that we will work on, but its context within the local hospital system. The most vibrant department within an unresponsive hospital system will drown in the future penalties, and likewise for an unenthusiastic department within a forward-thinking system. In short, we need to start training ourselves to be keener, sharper, and more agile physicians, and to position ourselves within like-minded environments. Perhaps more important than any of these, we need to reclaim the right to shape our own profession. In recent history there has not been a better opportunity for cardiothoracic surgeons as a group to assert themselves as adept physicians and leaders. Whether we become head of CMS, participate in STS fly-ins to Capitol Hill, write our congressman about the issues we face, or engage our hospitals to anticipate the coming changes, it is up to us to ensure that we have a future.

Dr. Zeigler is one of the outgoing resident medical editors for Thoracic Surgery News.

WASHINGTON - A transcatheter pulmonary valve system that provides a new right ventricle to pulmonary artery conduit to congenital heart disease patients without the need for open heart surgery performed a little better in a real-world registry at 10 U.S. centers than it had in the pivotal trial that led to the system's 2010 FDA approval.

The new results "confirm the strong performance of the Melody transcatheter pulmonary valve achieved by real-world providers with results comparable to the U.S. investigational device exemption [IDE] trial," Dr. Aimee K. Armstrong said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. The "high level" of 97% freedom from transcatheter pulmonary valve (TPV) dysfunction at 1 year "was better than in the IDE trial," where the level reached 94%, noted Dr. Armstrong of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

The registry study, which the FDA mandated when it approved the Melody valve in 2010, ran during July 2010 to July 2012 at 10 U.S. centers that had not participated in the pivotal trial. The 99 patients who received an implant that stayed in place for at least 1 day ranged from 5 to 45 years old, with an average age of 20 years. Although patient follow-up averaged 22 months, the study's primary endpoint was acceptable hemodynamic function within the conduit at 6 months, with a prespecified performance goal of 75% of patients achieving this outcome. The outcome actually occurred in 97% of the 90 evaluable patients at 6 months, and in 88% of all 99 patients who received a conduit. The difference between each of these rates and the performance goal was statistically significant, Dr. Armstrong said.

The transcatheter valve showed excellent performance by other criteria as well. Acceptable hemodynamic function continued through 1 year in 94% of the 87 implanted patients with evaluable data at 12 months, which translated to 83% of the entire 99 patients in the implanted group. Severe or moderate pulmonary valve regurgitation existed in 85% of the patients before treatment; after treatment no patient had severe or moderate regurgitation, and after 1 year 63% had no regurgitation, 24% had trace, and 12% had mild regurgitation (figures total 99% because of rounding). The 1-year rate of 97% of patients free from dysfunction of their implanted valve appeared to surpass the 94% rate seen in the pivotal trial (Circulation 2010;122:507-16).

The results also showed that high right ventricular pressure prior to valve placement was the only variable independently associated with subsequent valve dysfunction. "Patients who go into the procedure with a very stenotic conduit are probably at higher risk for transcatheter pulmonary valve dysfunction down the road," she said.

The study was sponsored by Medtronic, which markets the Melody transcatheter pulmonary valve. Dr. Armstrong said she has received research funding from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

WASHINGTON - A transcatheter pulmonary valve system that provides a new right ventricle to pulmonary artery conduit to congenital heart disease patients without the need for open heart surgery performed a little better in a real-world registry at 10 U.S. centers than it had in the pivotal trial that led to the system's 2010 FDA approval.

The new results "confirm the strong performance of the Melody transcatheter pulmonary valve achieved by real-world providers with results comparable to the U.S. investigational device exemption [IDE] trial," Dr. Aimee K. Armstrong said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. The "high level" of 97% freedom from transcatheter pulmonary valve (TPV) dysfunction at 1 year "was better than in the IDE trial," where the level reached 94%, noted Dr. Armstrong of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

The registry study, which the FDA mandated when it approved the Melody valve in 2010, ran during July 2010 to July 2012 at 10 U.S. centers that had not participated in the pivotal trial. The 99 patients who received an implant that stayed in place for at least 1 day ranged from 5 to 45 years old, with an average age of 20 years. Although patient follow-up averaged 22 months, the study's primary endpoint was acceptable hemodynamic function within the conduit at 6 months, with a prespecified performance goal of 75% of patients achieving this outcome. The outcome actually occurred in 97% of the 90 evaluable patients at 6 months, and in 88% of all 99 patients who received a conduit. The difference between each of these rates and the performance goal was statistically significant, Dr. Armstrong said.

The transcatheter valve showed excellent performance by other criteria as well. Acceptable hemodynamic function continued through 1 year in 94% of the 87 implanted patients with evaluable data at 12 months, which translated to 83% of the entire 99 patients in the implanted group. Severe or moderate pulmonary valve regurgitation existed in 85% of the patients before treatment; after treatment no patient had severe or moderate regurgitation, and after 1 year 63% had no regurgitation, 24% had trace, and 12% had mild regurgitation (figures total 99% because of rounding). The 1-year rate of 97% of patients free from dysfunction of their implanted valve appeared to surpass the 94% rate seen in the pivotal trial (Circulation 2010;122:507-16).

The results also showed that high right ventricular pressure prior to valve placement was the only variable independently associated with subsequent valve dysfunction. "Patients who go into the procedure with a very stenotic conduit are probably at higher risk for transcatheter pulmonary valve dysfunction down the road," she said.

The study was sponsored by Medtronic, which markets the Melody transcatheter pulmonary valve. Dr. Armstrong said she has received research funding from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

WASHINGTON - A transcatheter pulmonary valve system that provides a new right ventricle to pulmonary artery conduit to congenital heart disease patients without the need for open heart surgery performed a little better in a real-world registry at 10 U.S. centers than it had in the pivotal trial that led to the system's 2010 FDA approval.

The new results "confirm the strong performance of the Melody transcatheter pulmonary valve achieved by real-world providers with results comparable to the U.S. investigational device exemption [IDE] trial," Dr. Aimee K. Armstrong said at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology. The "high level" of 97% freedom from transcatheter pulmonary valve (TPV) dysfunction at 1 year "was better than in the IDE trial," where the level reached 94%, noted Dr. Armstrong of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

The registry study, which the FDA mandated when it approved the Melody valve in 2010, ran during July 2010 to July 2012 at 10 U.S. centers that had not participated in the pivotal trial. The 99 patients who received an implant that stayed in place for at least 1 day ranged from 5 to 45 years old, with an average age of 20 years. Although patient follow-up averaged 22 months, the study's primary endpoint was acceptable hemodynamic function within the conduit at 6 months, with a prespecified performance goal of 75% of patients achieving this outcome. The outcome actually occurred in 97% of the 90 evaluable patients at 6 months, and in 88% of all 99 patients who received a conduit. The difference between each of these rates and the performance goal was statistically significant, Dr. Armstrong said.

The transcatheter valve showed excellent performance by other criteria as well. Acceptable hemodynamic function continued through 1 year in 94% of the 87 implanted patients with evaluable data at 12 months, which translated to 83% of the entire 99 patients in the implanted group. Severe or moderate pulmonary valve regurgitation existed in 85% of the patients before treatment; after treatment no patient had severe or moderate regurgitation, and after 1 year 63% had no regurgitation, 24% had trace, and 12% had mild regurgitation (figures total 99% because of rounding). The 1-year rate of 97% of patients free from dysfunction of their implanted valve appeared to surpass the 94% rate seen in the pivotal trial (Circulation 2010;122:507-16).

The results also showed that high right ventricular pressure prior to valve placement was the only variable independently associated with subsequent valve dysfunction. "Patients who go into the procedure with a very stenotic conduit are probably at higher risk for transcatheter pulmonary valve dysfunction down the road," she said.

The study was sponsored by Medtronic, which markets the Melody transcatheter pulmonary valve. Dr. Armstrong said she has received research funding from Medtronic and Edwards Lifesciences.

mzoler@frontlinemedcom.com

TORONTO – Routine EEG monitoring after surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass in neonates revealed a seizure incidence of 8% in a recent study. In most cases (85%), seizure activity was detectable only on EEG and would not have been identified or treated without EEG monitoring, reported Dr. Maryam Y. Naim, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, during the AATS Annual Meeting.

Of concern, status epilepticus was noted in 62% of neonates with seizures, and mortality was higher in babies with seizures versus those without (38% vs. 3%; P less than .01). "Postoperative seizures are associated with worse neurological outcomes," said Dr. Naim. In addition to being a biomarker of underlying brain injury, there is some evidence that the seizures themselves may cause secondary brain injury.

A total of 161 neonates had 48-hours of EEG monitoring begun within 6 hours of cardiac surgery with CPB. The median gestational age of the cohort was 39 weeks, 16% were premature, and 13% had identified genetic defects. The median age at surgery was 5 days. Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest was used in 48% of surgeries (median time, 48 minutes), 16% had open chest with delayed sternal closure, and 9% had a cardiac arrest.

Seizures were detected in 13 (8%), with a median onset of 20 hours after return to the cardiac ICU (CICU) from surgery. Seizures were subclinical, or EEG only, in 11 patients (85%), electroclinical in the other 2 (15%), and status epilepticus was seen in 8 (62%). When seizures occurred, the patient was treated with antiseizure medications. Abnormal vital signs or movements suggestive of seizure activity were noted at the bedside; although such events were recorded in 32 patients (22%), none had EEG correlates consistent with seizure activity.

"Neonates with all types of heart disease had seizures ... " said Dr. Naim. " ... with a highest percentage occurring in those with single ventricles and arch obstruction."

Neuroimaging studies were reviewed by a neurologist to determine any association between injury and seizure location. Although neonates with and without seizures had similar CICU lengths of stay, mortality was higher in those with seizures (38% vs. 3%; P less than .01). No predictors of seizures were identified on multivariable analysis.

"Based on these data, we are continuing routine postoperative EEG monitoring in all neonates following surgery with CPB," she said.

While not discredited in any way, Dr. Naim’s data were met with a fair amount of pushback from the gathered group of pediatric cardiothoracic surgical experts. An informal poll of the audience showed that 80%-90% do not routinely monitor neonates for seizures post-CPB despite ACNS recommendations, and several of the comments questioned the technical and financial feasibility of routine EEG monitoring.

Said the invited discussant, Dr. Frank Pigula, a cardiac surgeon from Boston Children’s Hospital, "In all the groups that have studied this, in all patients who have had a seizure, there were documented brain abnormalities. So, the ways I picture these data are that a seizure is a sign of an underlying brain injury, much like a fever is a sign of an underlying infection.

"And you’ve made a good case for the routine postoperative surveillance for seizures; I’m sure everyone would agree that treating seizures is a good thing, but is there any evidence showing us that the early identification and treatment of seizures improves outcomes, either developmental delays or mortality?

In response, Dr. Naim noted that all the CHOP seizure sufferers were treated, whether they had EEG only or clinical seizures, and, at the 4-year mark, they are showing fewer neurodevelopmental issues than previous cohorts of untreated neonates.

"I think one thing that is very concerning is emerging evidence that the seizures themselves cause secondary brain injury," she said.

Dr. Naim and Dr. Pigula reported having no financial disclosures.

TORONTO – Routine EEG monitoring after surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass in neonates revealed a seizure incidence of 8% in a recent study. In most cases (85%), seizure activity was detectable only on EEG and would not have been identified or treated without EEG monitoring, reported Dr. Maryam Y. Naim, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, during the AATS Annual Meeting.

Of concern, status epilepticus was noted in 62% of neonates with seizures, and mortality was higher in babies with seizures versus those without (38% vs. 3%; P less than .01). "Postoperative seizures are associated with worse neurological outcomes," said Dr. Naim. In addition to being a biomarker of underlying brain injury, there is some evidence that the seizures themselves may cause secondary brain injury.

A total of 161 neonates had 48-hours of EEG monitoring begun within 6 hours of cardiac surgery with CPB. The median gestational age of the cohort was 39 weeks, 16% were premature, and 13% had identified genetic defects. The median age at surgery was 5 days. Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest was used in 48% of surgeries (median time, 48 minutes), 16% had open chest with delayed sternal closure, and 9% had a cardiac arrest.

Seizures were detected in 13 (8%), with a median onset of 20 hours after return to the cardiac ICU (CICU) from surgery. Seizures were subclinical, or EEG only, in 11 patients (85%), electroclinical in the other 2 (15%), and status epilepticus was seen in 8 (62%). When seizures occurred, the patient was treated with antiseizure medications. Abnormal vital signs or movements suggestive of seizure activity were noted at the bedside; although such events were recorded in 32 patients (22%), none had EEG correlates consistent with seizure activity.

"Neonates with all types of heart disease had seizures ... " said Dr. Naim. " ... with a highest percentage occurring in those with single ventricles and arch obstruction."

Neuroimaging studies were reviewed by a neurologist to determine any association between injury and seizure location. Although neonates with and without seizures had similar CICU lengths of stay, mortality was higher in those with seizures (38% vs. 3%; P less than .01). No predictors of seizures were identified on multivariable analysis.

"Based on these data, we are continuing routine postoperative EEG monitoring in all neonates following surgery with CPB," she said.

While not discredited in any way, Dr. Naim’s data were met with a fair amount of pushback from the gathered group of pediatric cardiothoracic surgical experts. An informal poll of the audience showed that 80%-90% do not routinely monitor neonates for seizures post-CPB despite ACNS recommendations, and several of the comments questioned the technical and financial feasibility of routine EEG monitoring.

Said the invited discussant, Dr. Frank Pigula, a cardiac surgeon from Boston Children’s Hospital, "In all the groups that have studied this, in all patients who have had a seizure, there were documented brain abnormalities. So, the ways I picture these data are that a seizure is a sign of an underlying brain injury, much like a fever is a sign of an underlying infection.

"And you’ve made a good case for the routine postoperative surveillance for seizures; I’m sure everyone would agree that treating seizures is a good thing, but is there any evidence showing us that the early identification and treatment of seizures improves outcomes, either developmental delays or mortality?

In response, Dr. Naim noted that all the CHOP seizure sufferers were treated, whether they had EEG only or clinical seizures, and, at the 4-year mark, they are showing fewer neurodevelopmental issues than previous cohorts of untreated neonates.

"I think one thing that is very concerning is emerging evidence that the seizures themselves cause secondary brain injury," she said.

Dr. Naim and Dr. Pigula reported having no financial disclosures.

TORONTO – Routine EEG monitoring after surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass in neonates revealed a seizure incidence of 8% in a recent study. In most cases (85%), seizure activity was detectable only on EEG and would not have been identified or treated without EEG monitoring, reported Dr. Maryam Y. Naim, of Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, during the AATS Annual Meeting.

Of concern, status epilepticus was noted in 62% of neonates with seizures, and mortality was higher in babies with seizures versus those without (38% vs. 3%; P less than .01). "Postoperative seizures are associated with worse neurological outcomes," said Dr. Naim. In addition to being a biomarker of underlying brain injury, there is some evidence that the seizures themselves may cause secondary brain injury.

A total of 161 neonates had 48-hours of EEG monitoring begun within 6 hours of cardiac surgery with CPB. The median gestational age of the cohort was 39 weeks, 16% were premature, and 13% had identified genetic defects. The median age at surgery was 5 days. Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest was used in 48% of surgeries (median time, 48 minutes), 16% had open chest with delayed sternal closure, and 9% had a cardiac arrest.

Seizures were detected in 13 (8%), with a median onset of 20 hours after return to the cardiac ICU (CICU) from surgery. Seizures were subclinical, or EEG only, in 11 patients (85%), electroclinical in the other 2 (15%), and status epilepticus was seen in 8 (62%). When seizures occurred, the patient was treated with antiseizure medications. Abnormal vital signs or movements suggestive of seizure activity were noted at the bedside; although such events were recorded in 32 patients (22%), none had EEG correlates consistent with seizure activity.

"Neonates with all types of heart disease had seizures ... " said Dr. Naim. " ... with a highest percentage occurring in those with single ventricles and arch obstruction."

Neuroimaging studies were reviewed by a neurologist to determine any association between injury and seizure location. Although neonates with and without seizures had similar CICU lengths of stay, mortality was higher in those with seizures (38% vs. 3%; P less than .01). No predictors of seizures were identified on multivariable analysis.

"Based on these data, we are continuing routine postoperative EEG monitoring in all neonates following surgery with CPB," she said.

While not discredited in any way, Dr. Naim’s data were met with a fair amount of pushback from the gathered group of pediatric cardiothoracic surgical experts. An informal poll of the audience showed that 80%-90% do not routinely monitor neonates for seizures post-CPB despite ACNS recommendations, and several of the comments questioned the technical and financial feasibility of routine EEG monitoring.

Said the invited discussant, Dr. Frank Pigula, a cardiac surgeon from Boston Children’s Hospital, "In all the groups that have studied this, in all patients who have had a seizure, there were documented brain abnormalities. So, the ways I picture these data are that a seizure is a sign of an underlying brain injury, much like a fever is a sign of an underlying infection.

"And you’ve made a good case for the routine postoperative surveillance for seizures; I’m sure everyone would agree that treating seizures is a good thing, but is there any evidence showing us that the early identification and treatment of seizures improves outcomes, either developmental delays or mortality?

In response, Dr. Naim noted that all the CHOP seizure sufferers were treated, whether they had EEG only or clinical seizures, and, at the 4-year mark, they are showing fewer neurodevelopmental issues than previous cohorts of untreated neonates.

"I think one thing that is very concerning is emerging evidence that the seizures themselves cause secondary brain injury," she said.

Dr. Naim and Dr. Pigula reported having no financial disclosures.

In previous studies on patients under 6 months of age undergoing a wide range of congenital cardiac operations, Dr. Meena Nathan and her colleagues at Boston Children’s Hospital found that immediate revisions of procedures intraoperatively that resulted in adequate anatomic correction of residual defects did not affect outcomes, but that delayed revisions of residual lesions resulted in worse patient outcomes.

Dr. Nathan presented the results of a larger prospective cohort of patients that she and her colleagues studied who were followed from index surgery to discharge from January 2011 to September 2013.

Patients were divided into four groups: a) intraoperative revisions of residual lesion, b) delayed postoperative revision of residual lesions during the same hospital stay, c) both intraoperative and delayed (BOTH) revision of residual lesions, d) and no revisions (neither intraoperative nor postoperative revision), Dr. Nathan said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery.

They used linear and logistic regression to compare the outcomes mortality, complications (excluding unplanned postoperative reinterventions) and postoperative hospital length of stay across the four groups (using patients who had intraoperative revisions only as reference group).

"We adjusted for baseline patient risk including age, prematurity, presence of extracardiac anomalies, and RACHS-1 risk category, each of which could contribute to the difference in outcomes," according to Dr. Nathan.

"In addition, to allow inclusion of all patients in the risk-adjusted analyses, we added two additional categories to the RACHS-1 categories: all patients less than 18 years of age with non–RACHS-1 categorizable procedures, and adults greater than 18 years who are not eligible for RACHS-1 risk adjustment," Dr. Nathan added.

A total of 2,427 patients were discharged after congenital cardiac operations during the time period studied.

As might be expected, on multivariable modeling, adjusting for other significant patient factors, the no-revisions group fared better than the other three groups. The intraoperative revision group had significantly lower postoperative length of stay and complication rates when compared to the delayed postoperative revision and the BOTH group, but they showed no significant differences in mortality compared to these two groups.

On subgroup analysis of the intraoperative revision group, 86% left the hospital with an optimal or adequate repair on discharge echocardiogram, Dr. Nathan added.

"We found that the intraoperative correction of residual lesions results in a shorter length of stay and lower complications when compared to those patients who underwent delayed postoperative revision of residual lesion," she concluded.

Dr. Nathan reported that she had no relevant disclosures.

mlesney@frontlinemedcom.com

In previous studies on patients under 6 months of age undergoing a wide range of congenital cardiac operations, Dr. Meena Nathan and her colleagues at Boston Children’s Hospital found that immediate revisions of procedures intraoperatively that resulted in adequate anatomic correction of residual defects did not affect outcomes, but that delayed revisions of residual lesions resulted in worse patient outcomes.

Dr. Nathan presented the results of a larger prospective cohort of patients that she and her colleagues studied who were followed from index surgery to discharge from January 2011 to September 2013.

Patients were divided into four groups: a) intraoperative revisions of residual lesion, b) delayed postoperative revision of residual lesions during the same hospital stay, c) both intraoperative and delayed (BOTH) revision of residual lesions, d) and no revisions (neither intraoperative nor postoperative revision), Dr. Nathan said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery.

They used linear and logistic regression to compare the outcomes mortality, complications (excluding unplanned postoperative reinterventions) and postoperative hospital length of stay across the four groups (using patients who had intraoperative revisions only as reference group).

"We adjusted for baseline patient risk including age, prematurity, presence of extracardiac anomalies, and RACHS-1 risk category, each of which could contribute to the difference in outcomes," according to Dr. Nathan.

"In addition, to allow inclusion of all patients in the risk-adjusted analyses, we added two additional categories to the RACHS-1 categories: all patients less than 18 years of age with non–RACHS-1 categorizable procedures, and adults greater than 18 years who are not eligible for RACHS-1 risk adjustment," Dr. Nathan added.

A total of 2,427 patients were discharged after congenital cardiac operations during the time period studied.

As might be expected, on multivariable modeling, adjusting for other significant patient factors, the no-revisions group fared better than the other three groups. The intraoperative revision group had significantly lower postoperative length of stay and complication rates when compared to the delayed postoperative revision and the BOTH group, but they showed no significant differences in mortality compared to these two groups.

On subgroup analysis of the intraoperative revision group, 86% left the hospital with an optimal or adequate repair on discharge echocardiogram, Dr. Nathan added.

"We found that the intraoperative correction of residual lesions results in a shorter length of stay and lower complications when compared to those patients who underwent delayed postoperative revision of residual lesion," she concluded.

Dr. Nathan reported that she had no relevant disclosures.

mlesney@frontlinemedcom.com

In previous studies on patients under 6 months of age undergoing a wide range of congenital cardiac operations, Dr. Meena Nathan and her colleagues at Boston Children’s Hospital found that immediate revisions of procedures intraoperatively that resulted in adequate anatomic correction of residual defects did not affect outcomes, but that delayed revisions of residual lesions resulted in worse patient outcomes.

Dr. Nathan presented the results of a larger prospective cohort of patients that she and her colleagues studied who were followed from index surgery to discharge from January 2011 to September 2013.

Patients were divided into four groups: a) intraoperative revisions of residual lesion, b) delayed postoperative revision of residual lesions during the same hospital stay, c) both intraoperative and delayed (BOTH) revision of residual lesions, d) and no revisions (neither intraoperative nor postoperative revision), Dr. Nathan said at the annual meeting of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery.

They used linear and logistic regression to compare the outcomes mortality, complications (excluding unplanned postoperative reinterventions) and postoperative hospital length of stay across the four groups (using patients who had intraoperative revisions only as reference group).

"We adjusted for baseline patient risk including age, prematurity, presence of extracardiac anomalies, and RACHS-1 risk category, each of which could contribute to the difference in outcomes," according to Dr. Nathan.

"In addition, to allow inclusion of all patients in the risk-adjusted analyses, we added two additional categories to the RACHS-1 categories: all patients less than 18 years of age with non–RACHS-1 categorizable procedures, and adults greater than 18 years who are not eligible for RACHS-1 risk adjustment," Dr. Nathan added.

A total of 2,427 patients were discharged after congenital cardiac operations during the time period studied.

As might be expected, on multivariable modeling, adjusting for other significant patient factors, the no-revisions group fared better than the other three groups. The intraoperative revision group had significantly lower postoperative length of stay and complication rates when compared to the delayed postoperative revision and the BOTH group, but they showed no significant differences in mortality compared to these two groups.

On subgroup analysis of the intraoperative revision group, 86% left the hospital with an optimal or adequate repair on discharge echocardiogram, Dr. Nathan added.

"We found that the intraoperative correction of residual lesions results in a shorter length of stay and lower complications when compared to those patients who underwent delayed postoperative revision of residual lesion," she concluded.

Dr. Nathan reported that she had no relevant disclosures.

mlesney@frontlinemedcom.com